Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BECKETT HOSPITAL AND DISPENSARY, BARNSLEY, BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURNS (FIRST-AID TREATMENT FORMULA)

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is in a position to make a statement regarding the discovery at the Glasgow Royal Technical College of a new anti-bacterial method of treating burning whether caused by acids or by fire.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I am informed that Professor Todd and his assistants at the Royal Technical College, Glasgow, in collaboration with the Glasgow Royal Infirmary, have produced a formula for a cream for use as a skin disinfectant and as a first-aid treatment for burns. While I understand that claims recently made for this prepara-

tion in the Press go much further than those responsible for the formula would desire, I am advised that Professor Todd and his staff have performed a valuable public service in evolving this exceedingly helpful formula. It was described in the "British Medical Journal" of 4th March, 1944, in a letter from Dr. Leonard Colebrook, who was sent to Glasgow by the Medical Research Council to undertake investigations. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Education (Government Proposals)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will be in a position to announce the proposals of the Government with regard to the reform of Scottish education; and whether he will do so in the form of a White Paper.

Mr. Johnston: I would refer the hon. Members to my replies to his previous Questions on these subjects of 12th and 19th October, 1943, and 30th November, 1943, to which at the moment I am unable to add.

Mr. Boothby: Cannot my right hon. Friend give any indication of how long it will take to complete his investigations?

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a great deal can be done by enlightened administration as well as by legislation?

Mr. Johnston: That is quite true.

Herring Fishing Industry (Committee)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government proposes to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on the Herring Fishing Industry.

Mr. Johnston: The report of the Committee is presently being considered by the Fishery Ministers in consultation with the other Ministers concerned, and a decision as to the action to be taken upon the report will be announced alt the earliest possible moment. Discussions regarding post-war herring supplies are already proceeding with representatives of European allied countries.

Mr. Boothby: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the report presses the urgency of the matter, and the necessity for legislation to reconstitute the Herring Board at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Johnston: My hon. Friend is well aware that the report was published only three weeks ago and that there are many interests to be consulted before legislation can be drafted.

Housing

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will inquire into the methods adopted in allotting the new hutted houses at Clydebank among applicants: and is he aware that some of these houses have been allotted to people who already have houses while other homeless people, even including wounded ex-service men and their families, have been refused.

Mr. Johnston: I am informed that the selection of eligible applicants for the houses to which my hon. Friend refers was made by the town council on the basis of the rules which they have publicly announced as governing their selection of these applicants. The town council are unaware of any cases in which houses have been allocated to persons who are already tenants of other houses. If my hon. Friend has any information of cases of this sort the council will be glad to receive it and make investigation.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the case of Mr. Hemphill, details of which have been sent to him; and what steps he

is taking to secure a house for this ex-Service man, who has lost an arm in the Middle East, in view of the fact that he and his wife and daughter are now forced to share a small room with his landlady and her two sons and that the 200 new houses allowed to be built in Clydebank are insufficient even to replace those destroyed by enemy bombing.

Mr. Johnston: I have brought the case to which my hon. Friend refers to the notice of the town council and the Scottish Special Housing Association to see whether there is any possibility of accommodation being made available to the family either in Clydebank or in the hostel now being converted at Milngavie. In addition to the 200 houses which the town council have recently been authorised to erect there are 40o houses in course of erection in Clydebank for occupation by families living in overcrowded or otherwise unsatisfactory housing conditions.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that the council had notice of the fact that this man was coming home minus an arm since last July? Surely in that time they ought to have had a house waiting for him, in view of the fact that this House was of opinion that he should have a house waiting and ready?

Mr. Johnston: I have no information as to the prior knowledge that the council had as to when this man was returning. I have given all the information I have in my answer.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that the case was raised in this House last July by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) on a letter which the man had sent to his wife saying that he had lost his arm and hoping that when he returned she would have a home?

Water Supplies (Rural Districts)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give any indication of the Government's intentions with regard to the provision of adequate water supplies in the rural districts of Scotland.

Mr. Johnston: As the House was informed on l0th February the Government propose, as part of their general reconstruction programme, to introduce a Bill in the near future authorising


Exchequer assistance for water supply and sewerage in rural localities, and to lay a White Paper outlining the Government's policy on water supply. These proposals will apply both to Scotland and to England and Wales.

Mr. Boothby: Will there be a separate White Paper for Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: I think that there will be a separate section dealing with Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMOKE ABATEMENT

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the Government's plans for abating the pollution of the atmosphere by industrial and domestic smoke.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): The subject of smoke abatement is a complicated one which is under consideration by a number of Government Departments. I regret that it is not now possible for me to deal with it within the limits suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Keeling: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend appreciate that it is important to have a policy for smoke abatement before plans for new buildings are approved?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that it is the duty of the local authorities to prevent smoke pollution?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Supplies, North Africa and Italy

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in connection with the civilian and commercial supplies of coal to North Africa and Italy, he can make some pronouncement of the Government's policy and the basis on which the export quantities are arrived at.

Major Lloyd George: For the Government's policy upon the supply of coal to liberated and ex-enemy countries, I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made on the 4th August last in reply to a Question by the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy

Prime Minister on the 23rd September in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Newport (Sir R. Clarry). With regard to the last part of the Question, the quantities supplied are based on the minimum essential services of those countries.

Mr. De la Bère: Are we to understand that there has been no alteration since last August? Does not the position alter each month?

Major Lloyd George: We are in constant communication. This responsibility is shared and we are in constant touch with each other.

Mr. Petherick: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend assure the House that coal is not going to Italy to be consumed by private persons, and that it is used only by the Allied Forces and by public utilities which help the Forces?

Major Lloyd George: My answer of 4th August went into that very fully.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the shortage of coal for domestic purposes and the difficulties experienced by the public in obtaining supplies, the Government will make arrangements with the U.S.A. whereby some part of the supplies necessary for civilian and commercial requirements for North Africa and Italy are obtainable from the U.S.A.

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made on the subject of combined planning in the Debate on the coal mining situation on 12th October last. As a result of the work of the Combined Committees in London and Washington a large part of the requirements of the Mediterranean is now being supplied from Allied sources other than the United Kingdom.

Domestic Supplies

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that the coal ration brings considerable hardship to houses without gas and other ancillary cooking facilities; and whether any steps can be taken to increase the ration in such cases.

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made on the 23rd November last in reply to a Question by the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring), in which I explained


that there is no specific ration of coal for each household. The position since then has deteriorated owing to strikes and transport difficulties, and I can hold out no hope of any relaxation in the existing restrictions, though I would point out that provision is made for local fuel overseers to grant allowances for additional quantities in cases of illness or where there is an exceptional need.

Mr. Woodburn: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared to do anything for those houses which have no supplementary method of cooking and where the small ration that is given is largely taken up by stone? Can he give an assurance that the stone might be replaced by coal?

Major Lloyd George: Naturally I would if I could. My hon. friend probably knows better than I do the difficulties with regard to screen work at the present time, and there is certainly a deterioration because of that. With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, exceptional need does mean cases such as he has referred to.

Mr. McKinlay: Is it correct to use the word "ration"?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir.

Dr. Haden Guest: Is it not a fact that in certain areas there is unequal distribution of coal among registered customers because some suppliers have an unduly large number of registrations, which they are unable to handle? Is it not possible in such cases to secure that the registrations are spread more equitably over all the suppliers in the area, so as to ensure consumers getting their allocation?

Major Lloyd George: I am prepared to look into that point if my hon. Friend has cases of that sort.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that the so-called coal ration is frequently much reduced by the inclusion of stone in the ration and that this causes serious hardship to homes where no other cooking resources exist; and whether he is prepared to ensure that only coal will be supplied or that the charge for stone will be refunded to those so overcharged.

Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a Question on this subject by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) on 18th February.

Output

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how the average weekly output of coal from British mines during the month of February compares with the similar period in each of the four preceding years?

Major Lloyd George: As the answer involves a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir A. Southby: In view of the fact that only five years are involved, could my right hon. and gallant Friend not give the figures now?

Major Lloyd George: That means 35 figures. It would take rather long.

Sir A. Southby: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say to what extent the shortage exists, compared with last February?

Major Lloyd George: Certainly. The shortage is in the neighbourhood of 200,000 tons.

Sir A. Southby: Will he bring to the notice of those responsible for the stoppage of work in the coal industry the results which would accrue if the Merchant Navy and the Services went out on strike?

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Would it be possible for the Minister to give figures for the net output of coal without the dirt?

The information is as follows:

The average weekly output of saleable coal during the month of February in each year from 1940 to 1944 was as follows:






Tons.


1940
…
…
…
4,415,000


1941
…
…
…
3,904,000


1942
…
…
…
4,042,000


1943
…
…
…
4,019,000


1944
…
…
…
3,785,000


The figures for February, 1943, and February, 1944, are provisional.

Easington Colliery

Mr. Levy: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he has any statement to make with regard to the proposal to discharge 450 employees of the Easington coalmine.

Major Lloyd George: Following the award of the National Reference Tribunal on the 22nd January, output at the Easington Colliery declined very sharply from about 15,000 tons a week to 6,500 tons. In these circumstances I had to consider whether it was in the best interests of production to continue working the colliery, having regard also to the fact that the men's wages were being made up to the guaranteed minimum from the Coal Charges Account at the expense of coal consumers generally. After full consideration, I decided that certain sections of the colliery which were particularly affected could not be kept in operation and on the 6th March, at the request of my Regional Controller, the men concerned were given 14 days' notice to determine their employment at this colliery with a view to their being transferred to other collieries in Durham where the output per man is very much higher. Following this action, I understand that the question of restoring normal working at Easington was the subject of a ballot taken on the 9th March, and that a majority of the men voted in favour of lifting the restriction on output. I am not yet able to say whether this majority decision has been implemented.

Mr. Levy: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend seriously contend that the way to increase output is to direct miners from one particular mine and distribute them to other mines, and to close down mines where output is available?

Major Lloyd George: I thought I had made the position clear to my hon. Friend that, while output was available, it was not being got, and that 15,000 tons had dropped to 6,500. My duty is to use my power to the best possible purpose.

Mr. Shinwell: Was it not a foolish thing to threaten the men with transfer to other collieries, instead of trying to understand their grievances and to correct them?

Major Lloyd George: I think my hon. Friend knows perfectly well that that is not a very good description of the situation.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this colliery is in my area and that I understand the matter very much better than he does?

Major Lloyd George: The colliery may be in my hon. Friend's area, but if he does understand the matter, he has not been very successful, judging by the result.

Mr. Shinwell: rose—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: I am on my feet, and the hon. Member must give way. I have called another hon. Member.

Mr. Shinwell: That is not the end of the matter, I can assure the Minister.

Mr. Foster: Are there not other factors responsible for the fall in output at this colliery, other than the action of the workers?

Major Lloyd George: That is a very large question to discuss by question and answer. My hon. Friend knows that certain things are going on at the present time and I am very hopeful, as a result of the negotiations, that some of these difficulties will be removed. I could not possibly deal with the matter by question and answer.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the right hon. and gallant Member aware that there have been legitimate grievances at this colliery for many months past, which are now admitted? Why was it necessary to threaten to transfer the men to other collieries; and why was not an attempt made to deal with those grievances?

Major Lloyd George: I have always done my best to deal immediately with grievances brought to my notice. My hon. Friend ought to know perfectly well that that is no excuse for reducing the output in the way I have described.

Mr. Gallacher: There has been an awful lot of bungling here.

Statistics

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, taking the figures for 1939 and 1943, the increases or decreases in the wages costs per ton, selling price per ton, profit per ton and wages per man-shift in the Somersetshire coalfield.

Major Lloyd George: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will with my hon. Friend's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The information is as follows:


SOMERSET COALFIELD.




Wages.
Proceeds.
Credit Balance.
Wages per manshift worked.




Per ton disposable, Commercially.






s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


Year 1939
…
13
2·77
20
9·34
1
9·38
9
5·91


1943
…
23
1·47
33
2·10
2
7·93
16
9·43


Increase 1943 as compared with 1939
…
9
10·70
12
4·76
0
10·55
7
3·52


Percentage Increase
…
74·76%
59·66%
49·35%
76·83%

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, for the years 1939 and 1943, respectively, the average pithead price obtained by collieries for commercial disposals of coal, the wages cost per ton and the owners' credit balance per ton; and if he will also give in each case the percentage increase or decrease.

GREAT BRITAIN



Per ton disposable commercially.



Proceeds.
Wages.
Credit Balance.



s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


Year 1939
17
11·32
10
10·73
1
7·51


Year 1943 (Provisional)
28
11·27
20
3·05
1
4·32



%
%
%


Percentage increase or decrease in 1943 as compared with 1939.
+ 61·28
+ 85·92
- 16·35

Mining Subsidence

Mr. Daggar: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the date when his Department commenced consideration and consultations with other Departments regarding the question of subsidence in the mining areas of this country; and when it is expected these will end.

Major Lloyd George: Consideration by the various Departments concerned commenced in the autumn. It is not possible to say when the necessary enquiries into this difficult and complicated matter will be completed.

Mr. Daggar: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that there are so many reports on this question that

Major Lloyd George: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I ought, however, to add to the figures shown that while the provisional credit' balance during the year 1943 was about is. 4½d. a ton, the Government is committed to making this up to 1s. 6d. a ton.

The statement is as follows:

it is not necessary to delay a settlement by additional considerations and consultations?

Major Lloyd George: The only thing I would ask the hon. Member to consider is that there are good many other Departments concerned with this matter, particularly in regard to housing and so on, and that the Departments are very fully occupied at the moment. I can assure my hon. Friend that no unnecessary delay will occur.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In considering the problem of subsidence in coal mining areas and areas which are depressed, will the right hon. and gallant Member's Department take into account the very im-


portant fact that new industries will not come to those areas because of the fear of subsidence of new factories?

Major Lloyd George: I am fully aware of that, and it is a very important point.

Supplies, Epsom and Ewell

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the number of complaints received at the Fuel Overseer's office respecting shortage of fuel in Epsom and Ewell; and what measures he is taking to deal with the matter.

Major Lloyd George: There is no shortage of coal in Epsom and Ewell. Merchants' stocks are adequate, and Government reserves are also available in the area. Merchants are not seriously in arrears with their deliveries, except in the case of one of the larger merchants who has experienced considerable difficulty owing to sickness. In this case assistance has been rendered by other merchants and this arrangement will continue.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that last Thursday I telephoned the local fuel officer at Epsom and was informed by the assistant in charge, when I made a specific complaint, that the complaint was only one of many hundreds? When I told the assistant that the Minister said there were no complaints, the assistant expressed some surprise. Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain that?

Major Lloyd George: I did not say there were no complaints. If the hon. Member had listened to my answer he would know that there were difficulties in one case due to one of the large suppliers, the South Suburban Co-operative Society, having had very serious illness among their staff in the last few weeks, with the result that they have been very hard pressed to get their supplies delivered. There have been 150 complaints, largely because of the circumstances I have mentioned, but in a population of 60,000, it is not bad proportion.

Sir A. Southby: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that any complaints in the Epsom and Ewell district which have been made to me, have been brought to the notice of the Minister's Department and have been dealt with promptly as far as possible? Is it not a fact that any

shortage of fuel in Epsom and Ewell is due not to his Department but to the coal industry itself?

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL (ALLIED FORCES VEHICLES)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps are taken to exercise reasonable control or supervision over the petrol used by our Allies in Britain so that additional supplies may be made available for the urgent needs of the civilian community.

Major Lloyd George: The arrangements made to exercise control or supervision over petrol used by Service personnel in this country are the same for Allied as for British personnel. Service requirements must, of course, be determined by the respective British and Allied Authorities, all of whom are concerned to secure the economical use of petrol and to prevent waste.

Sir T. Moore: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that it is difficult to persuade our own people of the necessity to conserve petrol when they see large high-powered cars on the road belonging to our Allies and not always fully loaded?

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROLEUM BOARD

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will state the composition of the Petroleum Board; whether provision is made for representation from independent companies and utilising the services of consultants not employed by the large oil concerns; and whether he can give an assurance that the organisation created for war purposes will not be used to drive out of the oil business the smaller firms.

Major Lloyd George: The Petroleum Board covers substantially the whole of the petroleum industry in this country so far as it relates to the importation, storage and distribution of oil products. The number of participating concerns is in the neighbourhood of 120. I am sending my hon. Friend a list giving the present membership of the Board. Provision is made for the representation of the smaller constituent companies. The Board has available through the staffs of the constituent


companies, adequate technical advice, but they are at liberty to utilise the services of other consultants if they decide that this would be desirable or useful.
As regards the concluding part of the Question, the Petroleum Board was established at the request of H.M. Government as a purely emergency body and the terms of the Agreement by which the Board was formed, make specific provision for limiting its activities to the war period, and a definite period afterwards, necessary for the liquidation of its activities.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the monopolies concerned in the oil distributing industry are able to exclude the services of technical consultants of an independent character, and have done so? Can he give an assurance that they will not be able to create conditions during the war which will crush out small consultants when the war is over?

Major Lloyd George: I will certainly do what I can to prevent it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY CHARGES (COAL CLAUSE)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will confer with the Ministry of War Transport and other appropriate Departments with a view to ensuring that the power companies as a whole throughout the country do not increase their revenues by obtaining, via the coal clause, sums in excess of that required to cover the actual increase in the cost of coal; and whether he will take appropriate action to ensure a cheaper cost of current to the consumers.

Major Lloyd George: The operation of the coal clause is generally an integral component of the tariffs charged by electricity supply undertakings to power consumers. A scrutiny of these tariffs must wait on the re-organisation of the electricity supply industry, which is at Present receiving the active consideration of the Government.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that, in the long run, it is always the consumer who pays, and that he is generally asked to pay rather more than he should be asked?

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN MINEWORKERS (RUSSIA)

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he has any information about the hours of work, the amount of coal produced and the remuneration of women coalminers working at the coal face in Russia.

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir.

Mr. Wakefield: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend give an. assurance that, even if patriotic women volunteer to work at the coal face in the hour of their country's need, he will not accept that gesture?

Mr. Kirkwood: There will be none of the women of the ruling class working in the coal pits.

Viscountess Astor: Will the Minister get some information about this matter, on which there is a good deal of talk throughout the country, because we want to know what is going on in this paradise for workers?

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not time that these attacks on the miners ceased, and that there was some appreciation of the men's grievances?

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE GOLD PRODUCTION

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he has any information to show how many of the 40,000 persons in Canada, 30,000 in Australia and 393,000 in the Union of South Africa stated by him, on 11th March, 1941, to be engaged in the production of gold are still engaged in that occupation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): I regret that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available.

Mr. Stokes: Am I to understand that the number has increased and not gone down; and will the hon. Gentleman say that these people would not be more usefully engaged digging for coal, rather than gold, which, after all, is a perfectly useless pursuit?

Sir Afred Beit: Is it not a fact that Russia is the second largest producer of gold and does not seem to share the hon. Member's views?

Mr. Kirkwood: Arising from the question regarding 40,000 persons in Canada, 30,000 in Australia—hundreds of thousands of people—producing gold, will the hon. Gentleman tell us where all this gold is going? Is it going to America? Is it the case that all we get is paper while America gets the gold?

Mr. Stokes: Am I to understand from the question put by the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) that the Young Tories accept the view that what Russia says is so?

Mr. Kirkwood: Russia gets the gold, and we get the paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SEAMEN (DETENTION, AUSTRALIA)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is aware that several British seamen have been detained or imprisoned in Australia for offences that have not incurred similar treatment when committed by Australian seamen; by what arrangement these seamen have been detained or imprisoned; and whether he has made any representations respecting the mattter to the Commonwealth Government.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: My Noble Friend is not at present fully informed as to the fasts of this case but telegraphic inquiry is being made of Australia and I will communicate with the hon. Member on receipt of a reply.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the hon. Member appreciate that, meanwhile, this process gives rise to a good deal of disturbance in the public mind, and could he expedite the inquiry?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Purbrick: Is it not a fact that Australian seamen do not commit such offences?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Book Exports

Mr. Lindsay: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is seized with the significance of the economic as well as the cultural value of British book exports; whether his Department has analysed current tendencies; and whether

he is making preparations against the day when conditions will permit a revival and extension of this vital export.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): Yes, Sir. My Department is in close touch on these matters with the Publishers' Association, who estimate that the percentage of turnover exported has fallen from 30 before the war to 21 in 1942 and slightly more in 1943. I look forward to a rapid expansion in our exports of books after the war, but the rate of the expansion must, of course, depend on the labour and paper available.

Mr. Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in close touch with the Dominions Office and the British Council on certain aspects of this matter?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, I shall be very happy to do so.

Viscountess Astor: If I brought the right hon. Gentleman some books which are being published now, which not only are not fit for publication in this country but are a hindrance to the publication of books for the export trade, would the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter?

Mr. Dalton: I am not a censor of morals, whatever else I am.

Viscountess Astor: That we all know.

Wireless Sets and Parts

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there is still in many districts a great shortage of radio sets and parts; and whether he can state the exact position regarding deliveries both from home manufacturers and from the U.S.A.

Mr. Dalton: About 55,000 sets were put on the market during 1943. The number of sets already imported from the United States is about 25,00o, and distribution will begin within the next week or two. As regards components, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) on 1st February, of which I am sending him a copy.

Processing (German Patent Rights)

Sir William Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the handicap suffered by British industry before the war by reason of the wholesale and often vague patent rights


secured by Germany in connection with the processing of British and other inventions and discoveries whereby rights of manufacture had to be bought and were frequently refused; and will he see that this impediment to British industrial expansion is removed in any peace terms granted to Germany, as well as by any necessary amendment of our patent laws, in order to secure more precise specification of manufacturing processes.

Mr. Dalton: There are specific provisions in our patent law directed against the refusal by a patentee of reasonable licences in certain circumstances, including the non-working of the invention in the United Kingdom, and against vague and insufficient specifications. The question whether these provisions require strengthening will be for close consideration when our patent law is under review. The point regarding enemy-owned patents to which my hon. Friend has called attention will not be lost sight of in connection with the peace terms.

Sir W. Davison: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) drew attention to this matter but nothing was done; and is he further aware that owing to the vagueness of the specification it is quite impossible to manufacture many of these patents without the assistance of Germany? It is a most serious matter which ought to be receiving attention at the present time from his Ministry.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, it is receiving attention and will continue to do so.

Mr. Levy: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to set up an inquiry where these matters can be comprehensively dealt with and in such a way that papers can be sent for to enable the suggested overhaul of the patent laws to be carried out?

Mr. Dalton: I have given a good deal of thought to the matter raised by the hon. Member, and I hope to be able to make a statement on the subject very shortly.

Photographic Material

Captain Prescott: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satis-

fled that manufacturers of photographic material are, in general, able to supply retailers with their entitlement under the quota provisions.

Mr. Dalton: As my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate, the demands of the Services for photographic material are very heavy and are increasing. In these circumstances, I regret that it may be not possible for manufacturers to supply in full their quota for the civilian trade.

Captain Prescott: While I appreciate the reasons the right. Gentleman has given, will he do everything possible within his power to increase the supply of photographic material for photographers, as many are being forced out of business?

Mr. Dalton: I will do everything I can, but the needs of the Services must come first.

Cotton Industry

Mr. Kirby: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now make a statement as regards the Government's policy in relation to the future of the cotton industry of this country both on the productive side, spinning, weaving, etc., and in relation to the position of traders in raw cotton.

Mr. Dalton: Since receiving the Report of the Cotton Board Committee, I have held a number of consultations on the post-war organisation of the cotton trade; but I am not at present in a position to make a further statement.

Mr. Kirby: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to expedite his inquiries as far as possible to allow those in the industry to know where they are to be in the future?

Mr. Dalton: A number of things are going on. The Chairman of the Cotton Board is, I hope, going to undertake some inquiries for me into the finishing section of the industry, as recommended in the Cotton Board Report. There is a Mission proceeding shortly to the United States, led by the Cotton Controller, to make a study of war-time conditions there, from which we may learn something.

Mr. Petherick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Cotton Industry Act and the Spindles Act, those remarkable examples of planning, by no means did what those who advocated them anticipated?

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I ask my right hon. Friend in view of the very serious position facing the cotton industry in Lancashire whether he can give any idea of when he will be able to make a statement?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, not at the moment. It took the Streat Committee eight months to make their report to me. The whole matter is very complicated, those concerned are not in agreement and I must have a little time to unravel it.

War Commodities Damage Insurance Fund

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade the financial position of the War Commodities Damage Insurance Fund.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. It would not be in the public interest to disclose this information.

Sir H. Williams: Why is all information "not in the public interest"? It is time we had a little more light on this matter.

Mr. Dalton: The enemy would like this information. Therefore, I shall not give it.

Footwear Manufacture Directions

Mr. Keeling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the Footwear Manufacture Directions, 1944, the substitution of "more" for "less," made by No. 178, of Statutory Rules and Orders, is a change of policy or the correction of an error.

Mr. Dalton: The latter, Sir.

Mr. Keeling: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that an Order which appears to make a drastic, and, indeed, a revolutionary change, ought to be accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum, as recommended by the Committee on Ministers' Powers?

Mr. Dalton: Even the best proofreaders sometimes nod. The point has been met, I think, by my answer to my hon. Friend. It is a very simple matter. If necessary, I shall be glad to issue a further Explanatory Memorandum; but I do not think that that will be required.

Captain Strickland: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the difficulty in which it places a manufacturer who is told that he must not make the heel of a lady's shoe of less than a certain height, and is

then told some weeks afterwards that the word "less" should have been "more"?

Mr. Dalton: I have tried to remove the unfortunate misunderstanding, which otherwise would have arisen, by the answer which I have given to-day.

Proprietary Articles

Sir Irving Albery: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that many proprietary articles are now frequently sold in containers which are only about three-parts full, although no notice to this effect is given to the purchaser; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Dalton: This matter has not previously been brought to my notice, but if my hon. Friend will send me particulars I shall be very glad to look into it.

Furniture

Mr. Granville: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his intention to remove the control on the design of furniture at the cessation of hostilities.

Mr. Dalton: The demand for furniture after the war will be very heavy and the supply of material very limited. It will be necessary, therefore, to ensure that the best use is made of what is available. I have received a valuable report from the Furniture Industry Post-War Reconstruction Committee, who recognise the need for the continuance of control over production during the transition period after the war.

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a great deal of the designing of ordinary-price furniture is done by craftsmen-woodworkers themselves, and does not require a great designing staff? Therefore, will be consider the decontrol of design before the decontrol of production?

Mr. Dalton: I think I had better await the further report which is coming from the Furniture Industry Post-War Reconstruction Committee, on which both employers and employees are represented. Not all design before the war was worthy of British craftsmanship.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it essential that control should continue until production overtakes consumption?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, that is certainly my view.

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the President of the Board of Trade why the wife of a serving soldier cannot be given sufficient coupons to enable her to set up house for her husband on his return from abroad if she happens to have been married before 1st January 1941.

Mr. Dalton: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to utility furniture permits. Production is only sufficient to allow permits to be granted to very limited classes of people, including the newly-married. The latter have hitherto been defined as persons married since 1st January, 1941. But I am glad to say that, as output is increasing, I am now able to include those married on or after 1st September, 1939.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES, GREECE

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he is satisfied that the consignments of foodstuffs sent to Greece for the relief of famine have been of benefit only to our Allies and not to the enemy; and, if so, will he be prepared to permit further quantities of foodstuffs for the relief of Greek children to pass through the blockade.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): According to my latest information, the relief foodstuffs shipped to Greece continue to reach the Greek population, and have not been diverted by the enemy. It does not follow, however, that the enemy derives no indirect benefit from these shipments. Indeed, as I explained in the Debate on l0th November last, we have no doubt that the action of the Allied Governments concerned in sending foodstuffs to Greece has been of some advantage to the occupying authorities, though in this particular case we think that the assistance to our friends outweighs the assistance to the enemy. As regards the second part of the Question, I am not at present in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave on 8th February to my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey).

Mr. Sorensen: Is it true that if this food had not been sent to Greece all that would have happened would have been that more Greeks would have died through starvation?

Sir T. Moore: Has our action in this case actually relieved Greek people from starvation?

Mr. Foot: Yes, I think that our action has been of considerable assistance to the Greek people; but it must be borne in mind that it has been of some assistance to the enemy.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Prisons and Detention Barracks

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken to provide additional commissioned officers at all military prisons and detention barracks, as recommended in the Report of the Oliver Committee.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): The establishment of commissioned officers has been increased by six majors and 18 captains. Nineteen new officers have so far entered the Military Prison and Detention Barrack service.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if sick quarters have now been provided in all military prisons and detention barracks, as recommended in the Report of the Oliver Committee.

Sir J. Grigg: Sick quarters are now installed at all military prisons and detention barracks except Aldershot. At Aldershot considerable difficulties were experienced in finding suitable accommodation, but these have now been overcome, and the work should be completed before long.

Military Vehicles (Windscreen Wipers)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that road accidents are occurring owing to the absence of automatic windscreen wipers on many Army vehicles; and whether steps will be taken to have these fitted.

Sir J. Grigg: The information at my disposal does not confirm my hon. Friend's suggestions. I understand that, with two exceptions, all types of vehicles supplied to the Army are provided with automatic windscreen wipers, and that accidents due to the absence of such wipers or to defective wipers are rare.

Mr. Woodburn: In view of the fact that the Question has a foundation of fact, will the right hon. Gentleman make some inquiry into the number of accidents that take place on our roads due to the absence of these wipers, and see that Army vehicles and other road vehicles are protected by a further supply?

Sir J. Grigg: I have made inquiries, and they go to show that the number of accidents is very small; but if the hon. Member has specific information which will add to my knowledge, I shall be very glad to receive it.

Court-Martial Acquittals (Compensation)

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether a soldier who has been tried by court-martial for larceny and the case dismissed is entitled to any form of compensation for having spent 27 days in detention barracks awaiting trial, or to the return of £3 3s. paid to his defending solicitor.

Sir J. Grigg: I am afraid that a soldier is not entitled to any compensation in such a case. I understand that this follows the general practice in civil life. The Army pay due to him for the period he spends in close arrest would, however, be issued to him on acquittal. A soldier may make what arrangements he wishes for his defence. If, for example, he asks for an officer to defend him he incurs no costs. If, however, he arranges for his own solicitors to do it he must bear their charges.

Mr. Morrison: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in civil life a man would not be put under close detention for 27 days before being tried on a charge that an extra blanket was found on his bed? In view of the fact that in this case the man preferred to have his own solicitor, because he thought he would have a better opportunity of having his case put, and as the case was dismissed, ought not some regard to be paid to his case?

Sir J. Grigg: I am in some difficulty about this case as to whether my hon. Friend sent me particulars of it or not. But if he will send particulars of the individual case I shall be very glad to look into it.

Enlistment Notice (Detention Sentence)

Captain Strickland: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his atten-

tion has been drawn to the case of 14202464 Private W. R. Watts, sentenced to six months' detention for not obeying call-up notice of February 1943, which was not received by him; and whether he is aware that, on receipt of a further call-up notice in November 1943, he immediately obeyed his instructions; and why, if the former instructions were issued, no steps were taken to enforce them.

Sir J. Grigg: This man was court-martialled for failing to obey an enlistment notice which was returned undelivered from the address which the man gave on registering. Inquiries as to his whereabouts were made, and it was found that he had moved twice without informing the Ministry of Labour. There is no evidence that any of the authorities concerned departed from the procedure normally followed in such cases.

Captain Strickland: Would my right hon. Friend inform the House whether the inquiry as to the delivery of this note was made at the house of the father of the man, where he lived at the time; and is he also aware that since then he got married and that immediately on receiving his final call-up notice he obeyed it?

Tanks

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War what complaints he has received from soldiers in Italy that they have no tank equal to the German Tiger or Ferdinand; and is he aware that the provision of such a tank would contribute considerably to ultimate success.

Sir J. Grigg: I have had no such complaints. I do not, of course, accept the implication in the hon. Member's Question.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that soldiers coming home have stated that such a tank would be useful, and was not a tank equal to the "Tiger" tank offered more than two years ago and sabotaged by the Tank Board?

B.B.C. (Forces Programme)

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Secretary of State for War what opinions soldiers at the front have expressed on the new B.B.C. programmes designed for the Forces; and if he will make arrangements to obtain their views.

Sir J. Grigg: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the transmission to listeners in this country of a programme which has been transmitted for over a year to troops overseas is the main change which has been made. It is as yet too early to assess the views of the soldiers in operational theatres about this change, but arrangements are being made to find out. I do not think they will hesitate to let the B.B.C. and the Army authorities have their views.

Sir L. Lyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Members are receiving letters from constituents in the Forces expressing their extreme dissatisfaction?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if satisfactory communication has now been established with all British prisoners of war known to have been transferred from Italy to Germany shortly before the fall of Mussolini; and if parcels are reaching them regularly.

Sir J. Grigg: The 2,400 British prisoners of war in Italian hands who, as I mentioned in my reply to several hon. Members on 21st September last, were transferred to Germany shortly before the fall of Mussolini, have all reached permanent camps and their relatives have been notified. Since both the prisoner-of-war letter and parcel mails between Great Britain and Germany are functioning normally, there is every reason to believe that these men, in common with other British prisoners of war in German hands, are receiving the correspondence and parcels sent to them by their relatives in this country.

Mr. Driberg: So far as the right hon. Gentleman knows, does the figure which he gave represent all the prisoners in, the category referred to in the Question?

Sir J. Grigg: The category was the comparatively small one of those who were transferred before the fall of Mussolini. To the best of my knowledge, that figure covers the whole lot.

Mr. Petherick: Are names of prisoners transferred to Germany still coming through?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, I think so. The list certainly is not yet complete.

Captain Plugge: asked the Secretary of State for War, what steps are taken to alleviate the boredom in the Swiss camps of British prisoners of war.

Sir J. Grigg: Every effort is being made by the senior British officer, in consultation with the Swiss authorities, to meet the needs of British prisoners of war who have escaped into Switzerland, particularly by the provision of recreational facilities and by arrangements, where possible, for courses of study.

Mr. Wakefield: Will my right hon. Friend consider sending copies of HANSARD to these camps?

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister consider sending them copies of HANSARD, and letting them know how lucky they are?

Mr. MacLaren: Will he send out the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris)?

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS

Mr. Tinker: asked the Prime Minister if he has considered the resolution carried at a mass meeting of old age pensioners at Tyldesley, Leigh, on Saturday, 4th March, asking for an increase in the basic rate of old age pensions; and, as this question is being considered with the Beveridge Report, can he now say when a statement upon this will be made.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I am not yet in a position to add to the reply which I gave on 7th March to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White).

Mr. Tinker: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the anxiety of the old age pensioners, cannot he tell us something definite about what is intended?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I cannot add to what I said only a week ago.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the increase in Civil Service pensions, does the Prime Minister not see the necessity for giving an increase, at the earliest possible moment, to the old age pensioners?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Prime Minister whether he can give an assurance that no final or binding com-


mitment in regard to post-war trade or Empire economic policy will be entered upon by the Government until such a matter has been freely debated in the House.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will provide facilities for a Debate on the Motion on Local Government standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stretford, and signed by a large number of right hon. and hon. Members.

[That this House, whilst recognising that changes will be required in the structure and functions of local authorities in order to meet the requirements of postwar conditions and whilst concerned that the! consequent reorganisation of local services shall not be delayed, is determined to maintain the full responsibility of elected local representatives and thus to preserve the vitality and administrative efficiency of our democratic local institutions.]

The Prime Minister: Sir, I regret that I can at present hold out no hope of time being found for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Etherton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the widespread feeling that there has been no adequate Government pronouncement as to policy on this matter, and no opportunity to discuss the tendencies in local government which are at present taking place?

Oral Answers to Questions — COALMINING SITUATION (NEGOTIATIONS)

Mr. Granville: asked the Prime Minister, if, in view of the serious development in the coal stoppage, he will make a statement at the earliest moment and give the House of Commons an opportunity to discuss the recent negotiations.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I do not feel that it would be wise for me to make a statement upon the coalmining position at the present moment. I should also deprecate a Debate upon this matter until the negotiations which were opened last

Wednesday by my right hon. Friend are completed. I must ask the House to sustain the Government in this view which they have not adopted without careful consideration of what is best in the public interest at so critical a time.

Mr. Granville: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will take into consideration the fact that there is also a great deal of anxiety in the mind of the public, particularly as they have been told that military plans and the opening of the second front depend upon this; and will he also bear in mind that all that the public and the House of Commons have been told has come from the industrial correspondents of the newspapers?

Mr. Quintin Hogg: While respecting what my right hon. Friend has said, in view of the fact that, in the last Debate we had on this subject, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I do not feel that, provided everyone does his duty to the utmost, we are in any danger of a collapse in coal production in the coming year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th October, 1943; col. 928, Vol. 392.]
—does he not think that the time is approaching when another discussion of the whole situation is becoming urgent; and will he undertake that the House of Commons will not be asked indefinitely to postpone a discussion on what is clearly a widespread and continuing defiance of the law?

The Prime Minister: I never said anything about a time for discussion not approaching. I said that the time for discussion, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, had not yet been reached.

Mr. Shinwell: While not condoning what has happened recently so far as the miners are concerned, does my right hon. Friend not appreciate that these attacks on miners disregard quite legitimate grievances which have been persistently ignored, and that what has happened recently is the consummation of a series of tragic mistakes, for which the miners are not entirely responsible?

The Prime Minister: Well, Sir, I understand that some of the miners still out have not followed the guidance of their own accredited leaders and have not abided by the result of a majority vote. In that case, naturally, some disappointment must be felt in respect of their behaviour.

Mr. Shinwell: Surely my right hon. Friend understands that these miners, taken by and large and with very few exceptions, are as patriotic as any other section of the community, and are very anxious to assist my right hon. Friend in the war effort; and surely something substantial must have occurred to have persuaded them to take the action they did?

The Prime Minister: I certainly accept what has been said about the association of the miners of Great Britain with their country's cause, but the very reason why I did not want a Debate is because of the kind of Debate into which we might drift.

Mr. A. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the psychology of the miners has now been exacerbated by the wanton attacks made on them by many sections of the Press, and by hon. Members of this House, and that the time must come very early when those of us who have special knowledge of the situation must have an opportunity of putting the miners' case before the House, if we are to create a sound psychology in the coalfields; and is it not the case that hon. Members should restrain themselves in these circumstances?

The Prime Minister: I am far from saying that there should not be a Debate on the coalmining situation, but not at the present time. That is in accordance with the best advice I have received from those who really have great knowledge of the problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Bank of England (Note Issue)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of composition paid by the Bank of England under the Bank Charter Act, 1844, and the Bankers Composition Act, 1856, to other banks for the years 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942, in consideration of the discontinuance of the issue of notes by these banks.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave to this same Question on 14th October, 1943.

Wages and Prices

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make a

statement explaining what is the inflationary effect of increased wages, salaries and pensions.

Sir J. Anderson: I will glady make a statement on this subject on a more suitable occasion. Meantime, I would refer my hon. Friend to the White Paper on Price Stabilisation and Industrial Policy (Cmd. 6294), which was published in July, 1941, and in which the views of the Government on the subject raised in his Question were set out in some detail.

Mr. Shinwell: Would not my right hon. Friend consider analysing this very important question, and, having done so, sending a statement of his conclusions to the Secretary of State for War?

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it was with his authority that the Secretary of State for War made a statement during the Debate on Service Pay and Allowances last week, that the increased cost asked for would cause inflation?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not want to be drawn into what I feel would be a fruitless attempt to deal adequately with this very large subject, within the limits of a Parliamentary Question. With regard to the supplementary question just put to me, I would say this—that, if some of the more extreme statements made in the course of the Debate in question were accepted and acted upon, the result, in my opinion, would definitely be inflationary.

Mr. A. Edwards: The Chancellor has implied that he would make a statement on a suitable occasion. Surely, when the Secretary for War has told the country that to do justice to the soldier would cause the wildest inflation, that is a suitable opportunity for a discussion?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think that that was what my right hon. Friend said.

War Savings

Commander King-Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will indicate to head offices of banks, insurance companies and other large commercial institutions that it is desirable that their investments in Government securities, in connection with "Salute the Soldier," should be made exclusively in the area where the head office is situated and not spread over their branches.

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. The funds at the disposal of these institutions for investment in War Loans are largely derived from the activities of their local branches. It is, therefore, quite proper that these institutions should allocate their investments to their branches and so enable each branch to partake in the savings movement of the local community to which it belongs. The practice has been generally followed in previous savings campaigns, and I fully approve its adoption in the forthcoming "Salute the Soldier Weeks."

Commander King-Hall: Arising out of that reply, does the Chancellor not realise that, owing to the practice described in this Question, the small saver is led to suppose on the day the campaign opens that the object has largely been achieved, whereas, in fact, nothing of the kind has happened? Is that not an unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Sir J. Anderson: I think not. I think it is all part of a necessary process of stimulating interest in small savings. I think we have every reason to be satisfied with the results so far achieved as a result of these campaigns.

Mr. Stokes: Is not the whole plan one of continuing to deceive the people in this matter?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir.

Mr. A. Edwards: Does not the Chancellor's statement indicate that not one-tenth of these savings are genuine savings; and is it not a very expensive way of stimulating saving?

Commander King-Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the maximum contribution for savings certificates a firm is allowed to charge against E.P.T. under the heading "welfare" in schemes to assist their employees to purchase War Savings Certificates.

Sir J. Anderson: As my predecessor explained on the 5th August, 1943, in reply to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) contributions made by an employer towards the purchase of National Savings Certificates by his employees normally rank as a deduction in computing his profits for taxation purposes, provided that such contributions are not unreasonable in amount. The question whether contributions made by

a particular employer should be regarded as unreasonable would need to be considered in the light of the full circumstances of the particular case.

Commander King-Hall: Arising out of that reply, will the Chancellor agree that the case in which a 50 per cent. contribution is made is reasonable, in view of the fact that a person who buys a certificate can go on the same day to a Post Office and cash it for the full value, and is not the Chancellor losing revenue?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not agree.

Mr. Stokes: Does it not illustrate that the whole thing is absolute humbug?

Commander King-Hall: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Currency

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much new money has been created since the outbreak of war and by what methods.

Sir J. Anderson: If the word "money" in the Question refers to notes and coin, the estimated total of such currency held outside the banks increased by about £570,000,000 between August, 1939, and January, 1944. If more than this is meant to be covered, I can only say that I know of no satisfactory way of measuring the amount of "new money."

Mr. Stokes: The first part of the answer not covering the point in the Question, would it be right to say that approximately £2,200,000,000 of new money has been created since the war started; and have the banks the power to convert that money into long term loans at 2½ or 3 per cent.?

Sir J. Anderson: I said that I did not see any satisfactory way of measuring the amount of new money, in the sense in which my hon. Friend infers.

Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult me afterwards?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSES (SELLING PRICE)

Mr. Mathers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to prevent the profiteering now going on in house property sales by exacting a financial penalty which will ensure that


the exploitation does not profit those who practise it.

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) on 28th October last, of which I am sending him a copy, from which he will see that the Ministry of Health, in co-operation with other Government Departments concerned, has under examination the general question of the selling price of houses.

Mr. Mathers: In view of the very great difficulty, if not the impossibility, of dealing with this matter by methods of control, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that a duty is required of him in the public interest to see that this problem, which is assuming very serious dimensions, should be checked?

Sir J. Anderson: If my hon. Friend means that the appropriate method of dealing with this is by the use of the taxation instrument, then, I am afraid, I do not agree.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will my right hon. Friend, when considering the matter, consider also the enforced sales of houses considerably undervalued to meet Death Duties and other tax demands?

Mr. Gallacher: Does not the Chancellor recognise that where you have private enterprise, you always have this sort of thing?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (MARRIAGE BAR)

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in planning the Government's new post-war scheme of recruitment for the Civil Service, he will give consideration to the abolition of the marriage bar.

Sir J. Anderson: The marriage bar, like all other similar questions, will naturally come under review when the Government are considering their plans for the postwar Civil Service.

Dr. Haden Guest: Will my right hon. Friend consult his colleague, the Minister of Education, who made a concession in this respect with regard to the elimination of the marriage bar?

Sir J. Anderson: I know all about that concession, but the conditions are not necessarily the same.

Viscountess Astor: The right hon. Gentleman may know about it but does he really understand it?

Oral Answers to Questions — EIRE (SECURITY MEASURES)

Sir William Davison: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the refusal by the Government of Eire of the American request supported by Great Britain that Axis Consular and Diplomatic representatives should be removed from Eire having regard to the serious danger to the Allies in connection with the forthcoming invasion of Europe in having a centre of espionage within the British Isles, he is satisfied that the steps recently taken to minimise the danger are adequate, and if not what other measures the Government have in view.

The Prime Minister: The initiative in this matter was taken by the United States, because of the danger to the American Armed Forces from the presence of Axis missions in Dublin. His Majesty's Government were, however, of course, consulted throughout by the United States Government, and gave the American approach full support. We have for some time past taken a number of measures to minimise the dangers arising from the substantial disservice to the Allied cause involved in the retention by Mr. de Valera's Government of the German Minister and the Japanese Consul with their staffs in Dublin. The time has now come when these measures must be strengthened, and the restrictions on travel to Ireland announced in the Press yesterday are the first step in the policy designed to isolate Great Britain from Southern Ireland and also to isolate Southern Ireland from the outer world during the critical period which is now approaching.
I need scarcely say how painful it is to us to take such measures in view of the large numbers of Irishmen who are fighting so bravely in our Armed Forces and the many deeds of personal heroism which they have kept alive the martial honour of the Irish race. No one, I think, can reproach us with precipitancy. No nation in the world would have been so patient. In view however of the fact that both British and British Dominion lives and the lives of the soldiers of our Allies


are imperilled, we are bound to do our utmost to obtain effective security for the forthcoming operations.
There is also the future to consider. If a catastrophe were to occur to the Allied armies which could be traced to the retention of the German and Japanese representatives in Dublin, a gulf would be opened between Great Britain on the one hand and Southern Ireland on the other which even generations would not bridge. His Majesty's Government would also be held accountable by the people of the United States if it could be shown that we had in any way failed to do everything in our power to safeguard their troops.

Sir W. Davison: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he does not think it essential that the frontier between Ulster and Eire should be closed, in view of the activities of the I.R.A., who have declared war on Great Britain and have riot long ago been apprehended with papers giving particulars of the American Forces at present in Ulster and certain plans of their operations?

The Prime Minister: I prefer to confine myself to a statement in general terms today. All necessary measures, within the limits which I have described, will, of course, be taken as they are deemed to be necessary.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether this decision was taken after prior consultation with the other Dominions, because that would seem to be really important to bring home to the Irish people?

The Prime Minister: Complete unity on that prevails throughout the British Commonwealth, as far as I know.

Sir Ronald Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the chief emphasis in the United States' note to the Government of Eire was on the dangers to United States' bases in Northern Ireland, and that it was chiefly, or largely, to protect them from espionage that this request was made? Is he not further aware that nothing that has been done up to the present has had the slightest effect to that end, and that while censorship is still applied between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, there is no censorship between Northern Ireland and Eire?

The Prime Minister: As I say, all these matters are receiving constant and vigilant attention.

Professor Savory: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the retention of these accredited representatives of the Axis Powers in Dublin is consistent with membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations?

The Prime Minister: The whole question of the position of Southern Ireland is anomalous from various points of view, and I can conceive that high legal authorities might have very great difficulty in defining the exact relationship which prevails. At any rate, I shall not attempt to do so at the end of Questions.

Captain Strickland: In deciding the limits of the prohibition on travel between Northern Ireland and this country, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the position of British soldiers serving in Ireland but due for leave? Will it be possible to make any concession to see that those soldiers are permitted to come back to this country?

The Prime Minister: I must leave the administration of the Act to the Ministers responsible. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will answer questions on the subject in detail.

Mr. Gallacher: I would not like to say anything that would make more difficult a very difficult situation, but I would like to ask if it is not possible, in any further approaches to Eire, to suggest that the question of partition will be a subject for discussion when peace is being decided.

The Prime Minister: I could hardly think of a more ill-conceived approach to the unity of Ireland.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne reported from the Select Committee on National Expenditure, pursuant to the Order of the House [3rd December], That they had addressed a Memorandum to the Prime Minister for the consideration of the War Cabinet.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

First Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 53.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, the Reports of Resolutions in respect of Supplementary Estimates, 1943, and Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before the hour appointed for the interruption of Business; that the proceedings on the Reports from the Committee of Supply of 29th February, 2nd, 7th and 1st March may be taken after the hour appointed for the interruption of Business and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONGRESS (DELEGATION)

Major Braithwaite: I beg to move,
This House, desiring to promote a closer association between the British Parliament and the Congress of the United States, requests Mr. Speaker on its behalf to invite the Congress of the United States to send a delegation of its Members to visit Parliament at as early a date as may be convenient.
In November last, the British-American Parliamentary Association, a body representative of both Houses of Parliament and of all parties, requested me, whilst in Washington, to ascertain from the Congress of the United States whether they would be disposed to accept an invitation for a delegation of their members to visit this country as the guests of Parliament. The chairman of the British-American Parliamentary Association, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot), whose absence I am sure everybody regrets to-day—wbo is we know carrying out very important public duties abroad—wrote a letter to Mr. Speaker Rayburn of the United States Congress, House of Representatives, which, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to the House:
My Dear Speaker Rayburn,
The proposal which Major A. N. Braithwaite, Member of Parliament, wishes to lay before you on behalf of the Anglo-American, or rather British-American Parliamentary Group, is that an official invitation to your legislature, Congress, to visit our legislature, Parliament, should be sent from Parliament here:
The point of this invitation would be that it should go from Parliament itself on the initiative of Members through the spokesmen of our two Houses—the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor—to the heads of your two Houses—yourself and the Vice-President.


The invitation would not arise from, or be in any way connected with, the Government here. The invitation, if these preliminary talks showed it desirable, would be moved in each House by a senior back-bench, i.e. non-Government, Member of Parliament, and be assented to, as I can assure you it would be, by Parliament as a whole. The visitors from Congress would be, during their visit, the guests of Parliament, and all arrangements for their reception and st would be under the authority of Members of Parliament and not any Department of State.
I trust very much that it will be possible for such a visit to come about. We in Parliament have long felt the desirability of closer contact with the elected representatives of the people on your side, representatives speaking to representatives as such, without intermediary. This proposal seems to us, after full consideration, the most practical and hopeful way of undertaking what Parliament and, I hope, Congress, would warmly welcome.
Yours sincerely,
WALTER ELLIOT.
On my arrival in Washington, our Ambassador, Lord Halifax, was informed of my mission, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the leaders of both political parties in the Senate and in Congress, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of both Houses, and the Party Whips were all most cordial, and very anxious to co-operate in every way with Parliament here. They fully realised the importance of this historic step, and I was able to return to this country at the end of January with the following reply from Mr. Speaker Rayburn:
My Dear Colonel Elliot,
Your kind proposal delivered through the courtesy of Major A. N. Braithwaite, is before me. I think it would be a splendid thing if a Committee representing your Parliament could visit the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States and, in turn, a Committee from the American Congress could visit the British Houses of Parliament. Therefore, I say we are in accord with your suggestion and, at a time when it is convenient, we trust that these visits may be made In our country, the Members of the House of Representatives stand for election every two years. 1944 is one of those years. Members must go through a primary election in their own party, and then the election in November. This, as you will see, creates a practical difficulty until after the elections, but, this I hasten to state, does not present an insurmountable difficulty. If the Houses of Parliament should issue an invitation to us, we would handle it sympathetically and, in return, under our rules and regulations, of course would be pleased to invite a committee from your Parliament. With assurance of high respect.
Sincerely yours,
SAM RAYBURN.

The President of the United States, Mr. Roosevelt, was informed of the result of our talks, and he wrote a letter to me, in which he said:
I am very pleased at the success of your mission here. I have watched the development of fraternal relations between our Congress and the British Parliament for a long period of years with deep satisfaction. All Americans take pleasure in this healthy and cordial evolution.
Very sincerely yours,
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT.
In the early days of the war we formed in this House the British-American Parliamentary Committee, whose terms of reference were to seek a closer and more intimate association with the Congress of the United States of America. The House will recall that Their Majesties the King and Queen paid a visit to the peoples of the United States in June, 1939. They established then in the minds and hearts of the American people a new and closer understanding, and left behind them a deep sense of real affection. Their charm and understanding have paved the way for a real and lasting friendship.
When the war came our friends on the other side rallied to our aid. None of us in this House can forget their generous gestures—the children whom they were prepared to succour in such large numbers, the help of the American relief organisations, the passing of Lend-Lease legislation, their subsequent entry into the war. The gallantry of their soldiers, sailors and airmen fighting alongside us to-day arouses in our people feelings which are very hard to put into words. In all this time there, has been a complete accord between the Executives and the staffs, military, naval, air and supply, all along the line, but at no point has there been any contact between the elected representatives on both sides of the Atlantic, who ultimately are the voice of the peoples on both sides and have to pass any legislation that is necessary. This is a weak link which I am sure everybody in Parliament and in Congress will wish to strengthen at the earliest possible opportunity. The heavy responsibilities that lie ahead of every one of us make it essential that we should have an intimate knowledge of our opposite numbers, and that we should establish such accord that complete confidence and unanimity of purpose can be maintained.
This is a historic occasion without precedent in the history of Parliament. We hope it is opportune, and that our invitation may be accepted. Hitherto there has been an indefinite something which seems to have kept our Legislatures at arm's length. Surely if there are any skeletons in the cupboard now is the time for them to be brought out and publicly destroyed. Nothing can be more important to the future of the world than a sound understanding between our two corporate bodies. You, Mr. Speaker, I discover have anticipated the wishes, I am sure, of Congress and Parliament, because you have already established contact with your opposite number. Indeed, you have had a meeting across the wireless of Congress and Parliament. Congress was represented by the Speaker of Congress, the majority leader, Mr. McCormack, and the minority leader, Mr. Martin; and you, Mr. Speaker were supported by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J. J. Lawson)—a formidable team who debated many problems across the ether of the Atlantic. It was a broadcast which was very interesting to everybody in America and particularly to those members of the House of Representatives who took part.
You anticipated and know that the same humane and generous impulses stir in the hearts of both our people. Destiny has placed in the hands of those two great democratic assemblies, an influencing power on world affairs which must last for a very long time. However difficult and insoluble things may appear we must try, in consort with our Russian and Chinese Allies, to bring out of the horrors of this war a world of united nations in which people can live in security, happiness and peace. No man has played a more important part on this side in that good relationship than our Prime Minister. His dogged courage and high resolve have won for him a place in the admiration, affection and esteem of every American, and during his last illness the prayers and the thoughts of the people throughout the whole of the United States were with him. He has made a very notable contribution to the good relationship that exists to-day.
I should not like to conclude these brief remarks without expressing my thanks to our Ambassador, Lord Halifax, an old House of Commons man, and to the right hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Ben Smith), our Resident Minister of Supply in Washington. Both of them were most helpful to me during my weeks in Washington, and gave me a great deal of very valuable advice and help. This problem is an urgent one, and it is in this spirit of fellowship, cemented by the common sacrifices of both our peoples, that we earnestly hope it will be found possible for Congress to visit us to establish those closer contacts and to achieve that spirit of co-operation which are a preliminary to the new world. The promptings that give rise to these proposals, to be successful, must come spontaneously from within our two bodies. They cannot be imposed on us mechanically from without. Therefore, when our American guests come to this ancient and honourable House the occasion will mark a milestone along the road of international co-operation, and this war will not have been fought in vain if it has established in both our countries a spirit of tolerance and respect and of understanding of our urgent responsibilities to mankind.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: I beg to second the Motion.
In doing so, I wish to associate with it the names of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) and the other hon. Members whose names appear upon the Order Paper in support of the Motion. I am sure the House will agree with me that I cannot add anything to the reasons which have already been given and to those which will, I am sure, arise spontaneously in the minds of all hon. Members as they have considered the Motion. The war has, indeed, interrupted the normal intercourse between ourselves and the representatives of the American people, and I hope this method will be a continuing one of bridging the distances that are separating us. Therefore, I commend the Motion to the approval of the House.

Sir Percy Harris: It is right and proper that all parties should he associated with this Motion. On this occasion I am speaking as acting chairman of the British American Association in the absence of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for


Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) who, I know, would like very much to have been associated with the moving of this Resolution. An evidence of the intense interest in the United States is the fact that this Association, which has been in existence only since the war, has over 400 members. Last summer it was my good fortune to be in America. I was there primarily to attend a meeting at Ottawa under the auspices of the Empire Parliamentary Association of British Parliaments. Half way through the conference we were joined by seven representatives from Congress, who came under a Resolution from both Houses. In a committee-room of the Canadian Parliament we had an opportunity to discuss various problems arising out of the war. At the end of that conference some of us had the privilege of travelling back with our guests to Washington, where we had an unequalled opportunity to see Congress at work and, to make personal contacts with its members.
Congress, as hon. Members know, is in many ways different from Parliament, both as regards the shape of its Chamber and as regards its procedure. While I was there I dared to hope that one day a Motion of the kind now before us would appear on the Order Paper of the House of Commons and therefore it is a satisfaction to me to see now this Motion brought before us. The House will agree that no time is more opportune for a visit of this character than the present. We have vast armies of American soldiers, sailors and airmen in our country, with many of them fighting alongside our men in Italy. I am told there is no precedent for a Motion of this kind, and I think that nothing could be more fitting, Mr. Speaker, than that during your first year of office you should be asked to convey invitation of the character indicated in this Motion from the Mother of Parliaments to the great American Congress.

Colonel Arthur Evans: As one who at this time last year was charged by you, Mr. Speaker, to convey a message to the Speaker of the House of Representatives at Washington, and by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, to present a similar message to the Presiding Officer of the Senate, I welcome this opportunity to associate myself, and particularly my colleagues of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, with this Motion: On, the occasion of my visit to the Capitol,

I was accompanied by His Majesty's Ambassador, Lord Halifax, when the Leaders in both Houses of Congress, in speeches which have been recorded in the Congressional Record and were subsequently confirmed in correspondence, expressed their determined intention that a representative delegation of Senators and Congressmen should visit us here as soon as circumstances permitted. I might add that at an audience which President Roosevelt was kind enough to grant me on the same day, as the representative of my colleagues, he also expressed his cordial approval of the coming visit. We are delighted to know that the time for it has now arrived, and I would like to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) on the success he has achieved in making the preliminary arrangements. Not only the whole House, but indeed the whole nation, Mr. Speaker, will eagerly look forward to their visit, in the confident belief that yet another link will have been forged in the chain which will bind our two peoples ever closer as the years pass.

Mr. Eden: This is, essentially, a House of Commons and not a Government occasion, and therefore the words I shall speak will be few and will be spoken not as Foreign Secretary but as Leader of the House with, I hope, the assent of the House. I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member fiat Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) is to be congratulated on his initiative, and those who work with him share in those congratulations. He certainly accomplished a clever piece of diplomacy when he was in Washington. The friendship of the British people with the people of the United States is deep and abiding. Our contacts in these war years have been at every level, Ministerial, official, Chiefs of Staff and, above all, the Forces fighting in the field. It seems appropriate that by this Motion we here in this House should strive to complete the circle of comradeship. I believe this Motion will serve to do this and I trust the House will send it forth with its most ardent good wishes.

Mr. Driberg: Since Members of various parties have expressed their support of this Motion, and since, after all, the United States began with a Declaration of Independence, it is not, perhaps, inappropriate that a single Independent


Member of this House should add his very warmest support to this admirable Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
This House, desiring to promote a closer association between the British Parliament and the Congress of the United States, requests Mr. Speaker on its behalf to invite the Congress of the United States to send a delegation of its Members to visit Parliament at as early a date as may be convenient.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

REPORT [29th February]

Resolutions Reported:

AIR ESTIMATES, 1944

NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE

1. "That such number of Officers and Airmen, as His Majesty may deem necessary, be borne for the Air Force Service of the United Kingdom at Home and Abroad, excluding those serving in India on the Indian Establishment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945."

PAY, &C., OF THE AIR FORCE

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Pay, &c.,. of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945."

CIVIL AVIATION

3. "That a sum, not exceeding L100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Aviation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945."

AIR SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1943

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 5944, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year."

Sum not exceeding.



Supply Grants.
Appropriations in Aid.



£
£


Vote.




1. Pay, &amp;c., of the Air Force
10
125,000,000

First and Second Resolutions agreed to.

Third Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AVIATION

Sir Alfred Beit: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £10.
I think I owe a word of explanation to the House for bringing forward the subject of Civil Aviation again within a fortnight of the previous Debate upon it. The reason my hon. Friend and I are taking this step is because we felt, on the last occasion, as the Debate developed, that its scope was altogether too limited, that the atmosphere which arose from the discussion was not favourable for a discussion of the immediate practical problems with which we are faced and that it was, consequently, an atmosphere too much fogged with the idea of internationalisation. My chief quarrel with hon. Members opposite is that by concentrating on it, they gave my right hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary an opportunity which he did not fail to take of riding off on that topic and, consequently, circumnavigating the immediately attainable matters. In short, they were biting off more than the world is prepared to chew. Though I wish to pass to other urgent matters I must just refer briefly to some of the things they said on the last occasion. Let me say at once that I do not wish to shelter behind the skirts of America and Russia, and say that internationalisation will not work merely because they do not support it. I will be honest and say that I am opposed to the idea just as I am opposed to the idea of an international police force and similar nostrums. Indeed, internationalism, as personified by such ideas, has not been an outstanding success on the political level, and I do not see any reason to believe that its effectiveness will be greater on the economic level. I am, in addition, unaware of any successful attempt to operate communications on an international basis. But, having expressed my own distaste of the scheme put forward on the last occasion, I would like, briefly, to refer to the reactions of the United States and Russia.
In the United States, 16 independent companies wish to operate beyond the


national boundaries and some have already applied, to that effect, to the Civil Aeronautics Board. The battle in that country is not internationalisation versus nationalisation, or even internationalisation versus private enterprise. It is a battle between these companies and Pan-American Airways, which, quite understandably, wishes to retain the ascendancy it has always had in operating to foreign countries. Furthermore, anybody who has been in recent contact with American aviation circles—and I think a number of my hon. Friends in this House have had that opportunity during the war—must be aware that the United States have great ambitions in the world's air and I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that they would like to dominate it, just as this country dominated the oceans in the 19th century—a perfectly legitimate aspiration, but one in which, I think, we must have our say as well.
Again, is it likely that Russia, which has the greatest armed force in the world and which has just altered its Constitution to absorb into its political orbit other willing countries, without ostensible loss of independence, would be prepared to surrender the control of its ever-growing aviation to the smaller countries of Europe, as was proposed on two previous occasions by the hon. Member for Nuneaton {Mr. Bowles)? In fact, the hon. Member opposite and his friends in bringing forward this proposal seem to have forgotten the trenchant dictum of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port (Mr. Hore-Belisha) in the Debate of last June when he said:
This international bird will not fly. Its feathers are too numerous and too heavy." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1 June, 1943, Col. 105, Vol. 390.]
Why is internationalisation not likely to appeal to us and to other European countries? Because Britain, France, Holland and, to a lesser extent, Belgium and Portugal are the centres of great empires and they will demand control over their own imperial air communications which they are not likely to be prepared to surrender to outside bodies any more than they would surrender control of their internal air lines. Hon. Members opposite over-stated their case and, in searching for a remote ideal, overlooked what is immediately attainable. I would repeat that the question is not one

of internationalisation versus unrestricted competition, but of competition guided by international regulation.
There already exists in the Paris Convention, which was not signed by the United States, and in the Havana Convention, which was not signed by this country, the nucleus for such regulation. The first obvious requirement is that there should be set up an international regulating authority to which all Powers, and certainly all great Powers, should be signatories. In Britain and in the' Empire, there is also need for a Licensing Board analogous to the Civil Aeronautics Board in the United States, and our suggestion is that the existing, but disused, Air Registration Board could be adapted for the purpose. In the present state of inequality between the principal Powers in air potential—a state which has been largely created by the war—it is impossible to apply the full freedom of the air universally, and I, consequently, welcome the discussions which we were informed during the last Debate are to be started with the United States. But I do hope that the lesser freedoms of the air, that is to say, the freedom of air transit, the freedom of refuelling and emergency landings, will commend themselves as soon as possible after the war to all the nations of the world, though it is perfectly well known that they did not so commend themselves before the war.
But the freedom of air operation, which, of course, is the principal factor, must be subject to traffic agreements, and must be of a reciprocal nature, if such is the wish of the countries covered by the agreements. If no such proviso is made, then the country which is best equipped in aircraft and personnel will have an unjust advantage over the others, and could, if so minded, control the world's air routes. That is why the question of bases is of such paramount importance, and vitally affects the British Empire which is so desirably spaced over the globe for air operations. I am sure nobody will consider that what I say is unfriendly, but in an election year in the United States it is only reasonable to assume that certain extravagant claims will be made, arm the American Press can already be seen making references to the rights that country should enjoy, in many territories, where her money has been poured out in constructing airports


and similar bases. I should like to point out that all such expenditure is a contribution to the United Nations' war effort and nothing more. Even in the West Indies, where certain 99-year leases have been granted to the United States for air and naval bases, the use for civil aviation purposes was specifically excluded, and in other bases in Europe, Africa and Asia the American rights expire six months after the termination of hostilities and the bases, in the normal course of events, will revert to the sovereignty of the countries in which they are situated. It is hardly to be supposed, in these circumstances, that the United States will make serious claims to extraterritoriality when, only recently, she joined with us in assuring China that we abandoned all such claims on Chinese territory for the future. These new and imposing airports which will be the nodal points of the great traffic routes of the future must be available to all on equal terms, subject to orderly international agreement.
I now want to ask the Government to be more specific and more informative on the future of British Overseas Airways Corporation. The Lord Privy Seal, in another place, gave a definition of the Act of 1939 to the effect that it granted no monopoly of operations to B.O.A.C., but only a monopoly to enjoy subsidies for overseas operations. After a close study of that Act, however, I go one step further and say that I would very much like my right hon. Friend, when he replies, to tell me if this interpretation is correct: that the General Post Office is completely at liberty to give air mail contracts to any aviation company which it chooses. In our last Debate the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) generated some heat in discussing the question of subsidies. He suggested that selected companies with great political influence would try to obtain subsidies from the State. Whatever we may think of that suggestion, I can say that there is great substance in the objection which used to be raised in the old days to Imperial Airways paying public money as dividends to shareholders. I may say, in passing, that that is exactly what happens in sugar beet companies but does not attract the same attention. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale did not seem to realise that, except in the case of new and

undeveloped air routes, with every year that passes, it is becoming increasingly more possible to operate air lines without subsidies.
I would illustrate that remark by reference to the shipping companies. Many of these hope to operate air lines after the war, and I fully recognise the justice of this desire, because they will be left with depleted fleets and will have considerable sums of money available for re-equipment. It is natural that they should desire to take advantage of the form of transport which will attract, not only the cream but an increasing percentage of their traffic and will, by the effect which it has in bringing about a shrinkage of the world's dimensions, attract a whole new class of traffic. I hope nobody will remind me that the railways killed the canals. I am well aware of the historical events of that time, but I am also aware that the circumstances are entirely different and that civil aviation will be provided, whatever individual companies, railway or shipping, may do. Further, any shipping or transport company which attempts to smother civil aviation will do so at its own peril.
I want to take the case of the obvious opening for shipping companies—the South American line, which, before the war, was never operated by a British company in spite of vast British interests in that Continent. I understand that six British companies have combined to form a subsidiary to operate air services to South America, and in view of the great experience they have and their widespread agencies and organisation it seems to me that they are the right people to do it. I do not speak on their behalf, but I have heart said that this company are prepared to operate without a subsidy but they, of course, require an air mail contract. It would require an air mail contract, just as the fastest ships operated by these same companies enjoy a mail contract which provides them with a certain amount of steady and assured income. If you like, you can call this mail contract an indirect subsidy but the difference in this case is that the money so expended can be recovered from the public, which would, consequently, overcome the political difficulty to which I referred earlier in my speech. In America, the public are prepared to pay higher rates for faster delivery of mail and whereas there is a considerable acceleration in the case of air versus rail there is infinitely greater


saving of time in the case of air versus sea.
I think it is unwise and unnecessary to make a flat-rate charge for a letter irrespective of whether it takes two months or two days in transit. If a charge were imposed which was proportionate to the saving of time, the Post Office would be able to recover in full probably the whole of their outgoings in the form of air mail contract.
Since our Debate of last June, I have altered my opinion in one respect. I then rather unkindly suggested that the B.O.A.C. should be wound up. Since that date we have had a Dominions' Conference, and though we do not know a great deal about what happened, the impression was given that an Empire policy had been agreed. I recognise that in our Dominions the main air routes are operated by Government controlled companies and that if Britain is to provide a link in the all-Empire chain—which I sincerely hope she will—which will encircle the globe I can see that the B.O.A.C. is the probable instrument to do it, quite apart from the fact that its predecessor company pioneered and organised the Empire air routes. But, I repeat, all this would not justify a world-wide monopoly for the B.O.A.C. and I am fortified in that opinion by the remarks of its chairman, Lord Knollys, who was reported from Sydney, in "The Times" of 4th March, as saying that the B.O.A.C. wanted to fit into the general picture of aviation after the war but had no territorial ambitions. He also said:
Personally, I should welcome competition. I believe that for the development of aviation, which requires vision and initiative, it is essential to retain the best features of private enterprise. That is not to say that a certain amount of Government ownership and supervision is not valuable in the composition of British companies operating overseas.
That expresses, in words better than I can find, exactly what my hon. Friends and I feel.
I now turn to the question of Air Ministry control, although I do not propose to say much on this subject because some of my hon. Friends wish to expand it. I would, however, remind the Minister that last year we advocated separation from the Air Ministry and that my hon. Friends and I wrote a pamphlet last autumn in which we advocated the same course.

Furthermore, in the various Debates we have had on this subject no hon. Member seems to have advocated a continuation of the existing system. I am fully aware that the wheels of a Coalition Government move slowly and that it is likely that we shall be told to-day that no decision has been reached. Nevertheless, I think it is our duty to let the Government know our point of view on this subject once again. Although we may be prepared to make allowances for delay in this respect, we may hazard the guess that the House will react most unfavourably if my right hon. Friend shows signs of parting with reluctance from what can only be described as a neglected child. I quite understand that if no decision has been reached he may find it necessary to support the status quo, but can he assure us that if the Government, as a whole, consider that civil aviation should be removed from the Air Ministry, neither he nor his Ministry will raise any serious objections to that course?
My Friends and I have a perfectly clear and simple policy for civil aviation which we have every reason to commend to the House. It can be summarised under five headings, as follow: First, we advocate the early adoption of freedoms of transit and emergency landing, but freedom of air operation and the use of airports must be subject to mutual agreements and traffic arrangements; second, we advocate an international convention to supervise subsidies, to regulate fares and to lay down standards of technical and personnel requiremnts; third, we advocate a British or Empire licensing board to whom all applications for air operation should be made, whether by privately or Government owned companies, with the object of preventing unregulated competition; fourth, we advocate the control of civil aviation vested in a separate Ministry or in the Ministry of Transport; fifth, we advocate that sufficient transport aircraft should be constructed in the immediate future to enable the British Commonwealth to operate its own air services with British aircraft, without being in any way dependent on any other country.

Mr. Tree: I beg to second the Amendment.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) would like to explain why we have felt it necessary to trespass on the time of the


House to-day. The answer is that we felt that the Debate on Civil Aviation a fortnight ago was couched in altogether too narrow terms. The international aspect is doubtless most important, but there are at the present time internal matters, requiring immediate attention, which should be debated. Before taking up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, the specific points I want to raise with him to-day—and I am glad he is to reply to the Debate—there are one or two points arising out of the Debate of a fortnight ago, which I think should be answered and argued because they seem to me to be based on considerable misapprehension. I was somewhat saddened by that Debate. As I listened to the speeches of the proposer and seconder of the Amendment, and as I read them carefully afterwards, I was reminded very much of the period between the wars, when words and phrases were so often substituted for action. That was, to put it more bluntly, a sort of age of cotton wool.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), undoubtedly possesses a great knowledge of this subject, but I feel that he bases his case for the future of civil transport on two false assumptions. The first was when he quoted from the speech of Lord Baldwin, then Mr. Baldwin, at the Disarmament Conference of 1932. I am quite sure that Lord Baldwin would be the first to admit that much has changed in the field of civil transportation since that time. The hon. Member quoted Lord Baldwin as saying:
Civil aviation is a thing to be feared because every plane engaged in it is a potential bomber.
That was a theory very frequently held, both in this country and Europe between the wars. To-day, I believe it to be fundamentally untrue. Surely we have gone into another era in the development of air transport. Civil and military design in the course of this war have diverged so greatly that to-day transport aircraft are no more potential bombers than the "Queen Mary" is a potential battleship. It was this fear of the transport plane, in the period between the wars, that made Europe and ourselves lag so far behind in the opening and operating of routes, both in Europe and throughout the Empire. The United States approached the problem in a different way. They took

the line that civil aviation did not constitute any menace to their security, and, as a result, they made immense strides, not only within their borders but right through the whole of south and central America. To-day, we must start with the assumption that civil aviation is a good thing; that the more we have of it the better it will be for the human race, and that as the peoples of the world come together and get to know one another, so is the likelihood of wars removed. The second assumption which the hon. Member for Nuneaton made—and one which I am afraid is pretty well shared by Members on the benches opposite—was contained in his sentence:
I find that people are exaggerating tremendously the real importance of civil aviation alter the war. …. So long as air travel remains very dear. … [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1944; col. 1325, Vol. 397.]
In other words, he considers it an infant industry still dependent for its existence on subsidies. In answer to that, I should like to read a sentence from an article in the "Atlantic Monthly" by one of the greatest experts on this subject in the world, now adviser to the Secretary of Commerce in Washington—Mr. William Burden. In it he said:
International Air Transport has been transformed by the war from a Government-subsidised experiment into an economically sound transportation industry.
That statement is corroborated by figures which have recently been furnished by the Civil Aeronautics Board in Washington, and if I am compelled to quote American figures in this matter, it is because, unfortunately, we have no statistical department dealing with the matter in this country. I understand that the Department of Commerce in America has now something like 9,000 people engaged on technical research and statistical work. According to them, United States Domestic Air Lines are now operating at a 1½d. per passenger seat mile, and they expect that in the very near future this will be reduced to id. It is, further, officially predicted that cargo costs will come down to ten cents per capacity ton mile and that, I understand, compares with a figure of 7 cents per capacity ton mile on surface routes. In other words, the internal air lines are now operating commercially and at a profit, and even Pan-American Air Lines which have had to contend with great pioneer-


ing work, and has handled it in a spirit of considerable enterprise was able to reduce by 1942 its costs of operation so greatly that the surcharge which it was receiving for the carriage of mails was reduced four times. I cannot get the figures accurately but they are something like 75 cents per 300 miles to 18 cents. I may be unduly optimistic but far from exaggerating the importance of air transport I feel that to-day we are only scratching on its surface. When you see what has been achieved in the more remote districts by the Canadian Pacific Railway, when you realise what has been done by a British citizen working without any subsidy at all, who has built up right through South and Central America, a great cargo-carrying system you realise the potentialities that exist for cargo-carrying transport.

Mr. Bowles: The hon. Member says costs were reduced to ten cents per ton. What is his authority for that statement?

Mr. Tree: It was Mr. Peter Masefield. I should like to remind hon. Members of one other thing. In 1940 the great municipal enterprise of the La Gardia Airfield was opened for operation. At the end of two years it was so crowded out that the municipal authorities of New York had to consider, and are now undertaking the building of a new and even bigger aerodrome. Therefore, let us approach these problems, not in a timid or restrictive way, but aware of the great destiny of civil aviation and determined to play our part in its development. But if we are to play that part, we should be preparing for the future now, and not only planning but seeing what we can do to implement those plans. My hon. Friends and myself are frankly worried about the rate of progress that is being made by the Government. Nine months ago when we had a Debate on Civil Aviation, we begged the Government to get on with its plans. It is difficult to define getting on with plans but certainly nothing much would appear to have happened since then. There was a Dominions Conference last October. We do not know what happened there, because only the barest details were allowed to come out. Beyond that, and the fact that an announcement about certain types of aircraft which are ultimately to be built, has been made, nothing else has come out.
It seems to me that nine months is ample time for gestation and we have every reason for concern in the matter. It was generally hoped that once the Dominion Conference was out of the way, conversations would be held, with the United States. When I was there a few months ago, and had an opportunity of talking about it, not only with members of the Government but also with operators of air lines, I was very hopeful that it would be possible to come to an agreement. I still believe that we should have that conference as soon as possible. It would remove a great many suspicions which exist on both sides, but with this proviso—that it is held in a spirit of toleration and good will and with the realisation that neither side is going to get 100 per cent. of what it hopes to get. Once those conversations with the United States have been settled, it is hoped that an international congress will be called because there are a great many matters of an international kind, such as the setting up of a permanent international air authority to decide on the rules of conduct to be carried out in the air and on the ground and between the nations.
But if we are able to reach agreement in the international sphere, aimed at breaking down restrictions and making air travel easy and safe and cheap, have we the set-up at home which will enable us to compete on level terms with other nations and do our share in its development? I say, emphatically, that we have not. Our failure is not due to the incidence of this war, nor to the Secretary of State for Air, nor to other Secretaries of State. It is due to the way in which civil aviation has been treated ever since it came into being at the end of the last war. At that time, after very considerable discussion, it was decided that it should be placed under the Air Ministry, but at the same time it was to have a very considerable amount of autonomy; its own controller-general, and, above all, the research and experimental division of the Air Ministry were to be placed under it, in order that it should develop as a commercial asset. That was the sort of general idea in the discussions that took place in 1919. But things did not happen in that way. In the first place, it was never given its own technical staff; Supply and Research were handed over to the Service side of the Air Ministry. Two years later, the economy axe came down and was directed


particularly at the Air Ministry and, as was only to be expected, it was the civil side that bore the brunt and for the next 20 years literally starved to death. This was due partly to the apathy of people in this country, and also to the impending war.
The question before us to-day, surely, is this. Is this great and growing industry on which many of our future hopes depend, to continue as second fiddle to a Service Ministry? Are its affairs to be entrusted to an overworked and over burdened Under-Secretary of State? Will it have to depend for its technical and statistical research on the Service side of the Air Ministry, or has not the time arrived when it should be accorded a Ministry of its own and a Minister of Cabinet rank? It seems to me that the case was answered the other day in a perfectly satisfactory way, when it was realised that much thought and planning had to be given to the subject. It was not to the Secretary of State that this planning was handed, but to the Lord Privy Seal with sole and over-riding responsibility and, from all one can gather, he has been extremely energetic in learning as much as he possibly could in the shortest time about his job. After the war, it is to be hoped that the Air Transport Command will continue in existence. In time of war it is only right that civil aviation shall be absorbed in that command. My own feeling is that British Overseas Airways would be far better off to-day under the control of Air Transport Command, but in time of peace and particularly now when we are planning for the future, surely it is right that civil aviation should be entirely divorced from the Air Ministry.
During the past 18 months I have talked to a great many people whose whole life has been spent in trying to build up and develop the future of this industry. I have never met a single person who has not been quite emphatic in stating that he believed that, until it is so removed, it will continue to be throttled and restricted.
In the same way there is considerable apprehension everywhere about the British Overseas Airways Corporation and as to whether it will be able to carry out the great task that has been entrusted to it. Can one Government-owned monopoly, one body of directors, how-

ever good they may be, plan and operate the whole future of British and Colonial air transport after the war? I do not believe it is possible or right that they should do it. It seems to me that a new and vigorous industry of this kind requires great energy and vision, and I cannot see why private enterprise that has never been backward in the past in this respect should not be, at any rate, allowed to participate. Our opinion is that licences should be granted to different companies in order to operate separate routes and that for doing this they should be allowed a mail surcharge. It is not possible in the short time at our disposal to-day to talk about the question of surcharge on mail. We hope to be able to do it at a later stage. I believe that that surcharge should be regulated in such a way as only to allow a small margin of profit in return for carrying passengers and mail. If we are to catch up the years in which we slept and latterly those years in which we have been engaged on more strenuous things, there is no time to lose now. The vision is there to be grasped, a great vision of the peoples of the world getting to know and understand each other better by this amazing new method of transportation. If we are going to do it it must be tackled with energy and initiative in the same way as we have handled many of these things in the past.

Mr. Montague: The speech of the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) particularly indicated what is in the minds of those for whom he stands in respect of the future of civil aviation. I will quote two sentences from his speech which justify me in making that comment. He said that the object of civil aviation should be competition guided by international regulation. Then he said that Pan-American Airways were perfectly entitled to seek world air supremacy as we are entitled to do. I quote these sentences verbatim—

Sir A. Beit: I did not say the second sentence, but I said the first. What I said about Pan-American Airways was that they were entitled to attempt to maintain their ascendancy in American operations overseas, but I did not say that they would necessarily retain it.

Mr. Montague: I accept the hon. Member's correction, but I took his words down in shorthand. Whether he did not


say quite what he intended to say I do not know, but he certainly gave that impression in the whole of his argument even if he did not intend to use those words. I still contend that he did because I took them down. The burden of his argument was that this great instrument of progress, this miraculous invention of the aeroplane, should be used for competitive purposes by private individuals for private profit. The Labour Party does not accept that proposition. It regards the air as a universal medium which, by its very nature, should be controlled, and, so far as it is used for transport, it should be operated by the nations of the world in collaboration. I am prepared to admit that we cannot force internationalism upon countries that will not have it. I know the difficulties in the way, particularly with respect to America. I do not think they are quite so pressing in respect to Russia. The attitude of the Labour Party in regard to the difficulties is that in our set-up we should so shape our home and Imperial policy that we can go forward towards a clear international understanding and cooperation upon lines very different from those accepted by the hon. Members who tabled this Amendment. I intend to deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Tree) in due course because I support the able speech that was made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) in the last Debate upon this subject.
I would first like to make one or two remarks about issues that come up in Debates of this character, particularly in reference to the point that was made a great deal of by the hon. Member for Harborough. That is the question whether the control of civil aviation should be left with the Air Ministry or should be given to a Ministry of its own or to the Ministry of Transport, now the Ministry of War Transport. I wish that hon. Members opposite would make up their minds whether they want a separate Ministry or whether they would be content with the Ministry of Transport. The Labour Party supports the transfer of civil aviation from the Air Ministry to the Ministry of Transport, but not for the reason that hon. Members opposite have. We support the transfer because we believe that transport is one and indivisible, and we want to apply the same principles to the whole of internal coastwise and overseas transport of all kinds that we would apply to

civil aviation. It would be desirable, therefore, to have civil aviation under the control of the Ministry which controls transport as a whole. One cannot conceive of the effective development of world transport except upon lines that are not detached but which are universal in character.
I would like to say a word about the shipping companies. They are facing the problem—and I am quoting from their recently published official statement—
of replacing many fast and specialised ships now sacrificed to the war effort, and we are entitled to ask whether aviation is to be artificially stimulated at the taxpayers' expense to the point of competing uneconomically with the ship, and, if so, with what object and for whose benefit.
The shipping companies are perfectly justified in putting that point. I see no reason why civil aviation should be subsidised and not the shipping companies, who have this replacement problem in front of them and who also see the competition of civil aviation. If that competition is to be subsidised they are perfectly justified in saying that they ought to stand in with regard to Government subsidies. We, as a party, are supporters of a policy of nationalised and ultimately internationalised transport so that, although we are willing to admit the case of the shipowners against subsidies for civil aviation by itself, we would have all transport made a public concern because of the character of transport itself and particularly because of the nature of its development. It is a remarkable thing that our friends who support the shipping companies always talk a great deal about the transport experience of the shipping companies—not their flying experience, but their experience with regard to ports and harbours, docks and dues and things of that character which are the general everyday business of shipping companies.

Mr. Tree: It is not the ports, docks and dues but the services that they have been able to create in the many years in which they have been running in every part of the world.

Mr. Montague: I know that they are experienced in travelling services, but I do not see why they should consider themselves, or why their friends should argue for them, that they are more experienced any more than the proprietors of stage coaches could have had the right to say that they were the people to run the railways when railways were begun. That is


not altogether the point I am trying to make. It is remarkable that the point of experience is put forward by friends of the shipping companies and friends of private enterprise in aviation who are the same people who want aviation to be taken away from the Air Ministry. I suppose that the Air Ministry has no experience of flying. If the shipping companies by their experience are the people to carry on at least some of the aviation development of the world, there is something to be said even for the Air Ministry, with its vast technical and operational knowledge of flying, having some say, if not complete control, over the development of civil aviation. I rather suspect that the purpose of endeavouring to get civil aviation away from the Air Ministry is that our friends fear Air Transport Command. They fear the whole idea of Government control of this new and developing means of world transport.
The Labour Party stands for the principle of internationalism, as far as we can get towards that principle at any rate; and we can get so far that we can have an Empire service, with its power of negotiation with other countries, which shall be organised efficiently upon the largest and most developing lines and which must be in the interest of the nation and not in the interests of private companies and private property. We are for the Empire Air Board, we are for the finest possible development of the Imperial services that can be undertaken but certainly not in order that private companies can make profit—and there are to be a number of them each chosen instruments for certain routes, and all of them to be subsidised one way or another, either directly or indirectly. It is rather disingenuous to talk about mail charges not being subsidies. It is nonsense. Of course, it is true that if you pay higher fees and charge higher for mails, you are doing it on account of speed and that you get a quid pro quo for it and therefore it is not a subsidy.

Mr. Tree: Hear, hear.

Mr. Montague: Very well, but one remembers the experience of America, and how these underground, hidden subsidies were used to develop civil aviation in America. One remembers what happened when Canada was developing commerce with the West Indies upon the same lines. They did the same thing in

the way of subsidies with mails and other things, and it was not economic, any more than civil aviation would be economic if we proceeded upon a basis of subsidy. It was hon. Members opposite who came along here with figures in order to show that nationalised steamships could not be made to pay, using the figures of a definite subsidy given by Canada in order to foster trade with the West Indies. When it comes round the other way, we do not hear that kind of argument, of course, from hon. Members on the other side.
I want to say a word or two about the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Harborough, so far as he referred to the development of civil aviation in the interests of peace and of bringing the peoples of the world together. I said a moment ago that I agreed with the speech of the hon. Member for Nuneaton. I do, but I do not say that every member of my party will agree with what I propose to say now; but I think it ought to be said, and I will say it. I was barracked rather unmercifully last time, when I put points of this kind to the Committee. The aeroplane, we are told, is to bring the peoples of the world together, and the result is going to be peace. I suggest, and I do so because I feel that what I say is true, that far too much is being made about the possibilities of civil aviation in the near future. I do not want it to be thought that by my saying that I am depreciating civil aviation or saying that it should not be fostered and developed. I believe that it should be fostered and developed. I believe that it should be taken in our stride; but far too much is being made of this subject and of its possibilities at the present moment. After all, who are the peoples of the world who are going to be brought together, in the interests of peace? The ordinary people of the world, of America and other countries: are they going to be brought together? The advantage is going to be that of speed, particularly for well-to-do tourists in the first place and for business men and commercial ambassadors.

Sir A. Beit: And for trade union leaders.

Mr. Montague: That is all right so far as it goes, but there are not so many trade union leaders as all that. The hon. Member spoke about the cream of transport.

Mr. Tree: I did not mention it.

Sir A. Beit: I mentioned it, and I said that civil aviation would attract not only it, but an increasing percentage of other transport.

Mr. Montague: I do not see why I should be interrupted so much. Hon. Members might wait until I have made my speech. When they have heard what I have to say they can interrupt me as much as they like, and can take part in the Debate. I intend to make my point, which is that, in the future, and particularly in the next 10 or 12 years, civil aviation will be for the well-to-do people and those who have plenty of money to pay for air transport, such as businessmen and commercial ambassadors. I am talking about overseas transport. I admit that there is a rather better prospect for the short journey. As the result of holidays with pay, organisations for workers' travel may be able to utilise air services upon a small scale. On a big scale, what does it mean? Well-to-do tourists, businessmen and commercial ambassadors; and they are not likely to cement the peace of the world. They are not the people who are going to make peace inevitable. When we hear that kind of statement let us not forget what Brunel said about the steam engine. He used precisely the same kind of language. The steam engine was going to bring the nations of the world together and cement the bonds of peace.

Mr. Tree: Hear, hear.

Mr. Montague: The hon. Member says "Hear, hear," but we have had several major wars since. Let us not talk nonsense about it. I am not against civil aviation or any other method of bringing the nations of the world together, but hon. Members, in order to get away with their proposals for profits and subsidies, talk in this grandiloquent manner, and it seems to me that that is something which ought to be debunked. The aeroplane will not bring peace until it is controlled internationally. If it is true that an international civil aviation policy cannot be built up, I am afraid we cannot expect civil aviation upon competitive and ordinary business lines to guarantee peace in the future. We are not taken in by that kind of argument and those grandiloquent phrases. As I have said, internationalism cannot be forced upon

countries that do not want it. We can do the best for ourselves and get as near to internationalism ourselves as we can, and we cannot do that upon lines of private enterprise and the making of profits for private firms.
If the House will allow me, I would like to go a little more closely into the question of the future development of the aeroplane for civil aviation. The Boeing 314 flying boat is the biggest aeroplane operated to-day for civil purposes. It takes 12 tons of gasoline to carry one ton of load 3,000 miles—I have checked these figures as well as I have been able to—at £40 a ton. That is £480. That is reckoning gasoline alone, and not counting operational and overhead charges, which are infinitely greater than for sea transport. Against that, a ship's fuel costs, not £40 a ton, but £2 10s. a ton, a far lower ratio of oil to load. The fuel bill to New York and back of the "Queen Mary" amounted to £18,000, against £100,000 for the equivalent air journeys by the Boeing 314 flying boat. Hon. Members talk about bringing the cost of aeroplane travel down to such an extent that the peoples of the world will be able to use it. I represent some 33,000 of the people of the world, and not one in 1,000 of them have ever seen the inside of a plane or is ever likely to. To talk about bringing the level of first-class air fares down seems nonsense, in the light of those facts.
Overseas passengers in 1938 by air were 7,500. I will allow hon. Members to raise that figure in argument to 125,000, which is multiplying it about 17 times. I do not think that even the most optimistic Member opposite would imagine that the figure for the development of civil aviation will be better than that, in the first 10 years after the war. That 17 times increase is from 145 to 2,500 a week. Assuming two journeys for each aeroplane, it would take 25 planes to do the job, even with planes of the type now being built by Kaiser in America, and on the drawing board in this country by arrangement between the Ministry of Aircraft Production and certain firms. They take 50 passengers and some of them more than 50. There are certainly 50 if there is no sleeping accommodation, between here and New York. For the sake of illustration, I am thinking of the New York journey, and comparing it with the journey of the "Queen Mary." To


increase the number of overseas passengers by 17 times to all parts of the Empire, and to suggest that that means a tremendous development, makes me think that some people are going to burn their fingers. Of course, hon. Members do not mind if the fingers that happen to be burned are those of the community, so long as the Government pay. These statements about civil aviation are exaggerated, and I am afraid that they are exaggerated very much for a purpose.
What about goods? The hon. Member for Harborough spoke about goods and gave some figures which I question very much. I cannot controvert them, because I have not the same figures, but I have other figures from sources quite as good as his. I quote here from Professor Sorrell, an expert in transportation associated with Chicago University. His statements are revealing, and I should like to see them controverted, if they can be controverted. He made a detailed estimate of the post-war prospects of civil aviation in the United States. He reckons that no more than 100,000 to 150,000 tons of commercial goods, at the very most, can be expected to fly in and out of the United States annually, even three to five years after the war. This traffic would be about one seventh of one per cent. of America's pre-war foreign trade by sea. The entire annual traffic of 150,000 tons could be carried by fewer than 500 Clipper planes, averaging 20 round trips a year, with 8½ ton loads. If use were made of large flying boats taking 60 tons, such as Mr. Kaiser is now building, only 70 planes would be required.
The present costs of airborne freight are from 40 cents to 35 cents per ton mile, and Professor Sorrell estimates that if, with the aircraft promised for 1950, this charge can be reduced to 10–15 cents, approximately 5d. to 7d. per ton-mile, this will still be between 50 and 70 times as great as the cost by sea. It may be added that, if the entire amount of airborne freight carried in the United States in 1940 were trebled in 1947, that would only equal the amount carried in a single peace-time year by one cargo vessel of moderate size.
I do not say that that is the last word on the subject. Perhaps Professor Sorrell is as pessimistic as some hon. Members are optimistic, but I think that all this

extravagant talk about what is to happen in the future about the numbers of people who are to take holidays by air is nonsense. As I say, if you take the population of this country and the most optimistic estimates possible, there is not one person in a thousand who will be able to afford to travel by air, certainly not to the Empire or to the United States of America or to Russia. If I were to take to my constituents some of the speeches that have been made in civil aviation Debates in this Chamber, I know they would rock with laughter. They would say "Blimey, it is as good as Itma."
Take the Miles X, that is the aeroplane that was invented by Mr. Miles which is now being proceeded with. It is a remarkable thing that the Government have given designing jobs to six firms—Bristol, Handley-Page, A. V. Roe, Shorts, Saunders-Roe and De Havilland. They are all getting on with first-class civil aeroplanes, first-class in every sense of the word. All that is very necessary, desirable and urgent. But we hear bitter reproach from the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) about the neglect of the Government in connection with this subject of civil aviation. It cannot fly by itself, but its profits can be guaranteed it at public expense. Consider that against this alleged urgency for building luxury aeroplanes it took three years to build two agricultural labourers' cottages in this country. That is the kind of thing the common people make comparisons about even if the argument can be described as "cheap." It is the kind of thing my constituents will talk to me about, the kind of retort working people will make if you talk to them about the urgency of civil aviation. I admit its urgency and desirability; I am not depreciating civil aviation. Let us get on with it by all means, but you are coming to the Government and you want the country to do the dirty work. I will prove that in a moment. The hon. Member for Duddeston (Sir O. Simmonds) shakes his head. He may shake his head in a moment when I come to refer to what he has had to say upon the subject.
The Miles is a machine to carry 50 passengers for a long range of 3,450 miles, or no passengers for a short range of 2,500 miles, at a cruising speed of 350 miles an hour. It is hoped to get fares down to the level of those of the first-class ocean liner fares. The first-class fare to


New York and back on the "Queen Mary" was £115. There are not many of my constituents who will go either by air or by the "Queen Mary" to New York, even if they have holidays with pay. We are bound to look at it from that point of view, when Members almost browbeat the House to support a policy of subsidies for civil aviation. It really is not so important as all that. You are not going to get so much more of the world's trade as a result of civil aviation, and that way of competition means war in the near or far future, because it always has led to war.
The world's biggest air liner is to be begun at the Bristol Aeroplane Company's works, one of 130 tons. There is no landing ground in the world capable of taking that machine. [Interruption.] We can build them, I know. We are to build one now according to the proposals of British Overseas Airways, 12½ miles from London, but even the longest of the runways proposed there is not long enough for this particular machine. It requires 3 miles with 5 miles of approach for landing. Even that is not implied in this competitor to the La Guardia aerodrome in New York.

Air Commodore Helmore: Will the hon. Member pardon me? I did not catch the figure he mentioned for the approach.

Mr. Montague: Five miles approach, 3 miles for the runway.

Air Commodore Helmore: I would be very interested to hear where that figure came from

Mr. Montague: It came from a publication called, I think, "Air Survey," which contains the statements of all sections, including the four Members of Parliament who published their manifesto. That is a statement on what is required for an aeroplane that is to be built. They are starting to build it. At any rate they are well ahead in regard to designing. We shall not get these large aeroplanes without tremendous expenditure—8-foot concrete runways, 3 miles long, all over the place. It is admitted that Service aerodromes are no basis for the aerodromes which will be required for the future needs of civil aviation. That is generally admitted.
All these things are to be paid for, if you please, by the State. It is a question of State assistance—airports, landing facilities, radio and meteorological services, direct subsidies according to routes—in spite of what hon. Members say in this House, the demand, on all sides, is for direct subsidies—and direct subsidies in regard to mails. Beyond that, the Society of British Aircraft Constructors say that the cost of prototype design and construction shall be borne by the State. The Government are to do all that. They are to arrange these conventions, incur all the displeasure that might result from arguments about civil aviation over the world routes, and deal with all the problems that arise. The Government have to do that, in order that private firms, admittedly each as a chosen instrument for certain routes, shall be able to make their money out of the future of civil aviation. Does anyone dispute that? Let us take the report of one of the Committees which says:
Indirect subsidies in the form of airports and landing facilities, radio and meteorological services and route control organisation are essential. The provision of these facilities at public expense is justified on public grounds and part of the provision for national defence. In certain circumstances, direct financial assistance may also be justified on the ground that the facilities afforded by air transport are closely related to the interests of national commerce and defence.
That is the report—a report signed by the hon. Member opposite—of the Lamplugh Committee. They go on to tell us the routes over which there must be separate chosen instruments—all on the same lines of having no real public control. All this is to be done for the benefit of private companies.
We as a party are not against subsidies. Personally, I am not against them. I think that subsidies are a method by which, in many cases, you can even out commitments. They are a way of arranging fair play between certain things nationally required and so on in respect to industry, commerce, development and the rest of it. I am not against the principle of subsidies. Unquestionably, if we are to foster civil aviation it will have to be subsidised for a long time. We are prepared to do that because of the value of civil aviation in the future even if that value is not so great as some make out it will be in the near future. But we stand by the principle that, if we are to


pay public money to foster enterprise of any kind, there must be Government control, national control of that enterprise. We will not depart from a principle of that character. I do not agree with the idea that private firms shall weigh in when a new invention comes along, take the cream of the profits—and they are not in the business for their health but for their profits—and leave all the dirty work and all the risk for the Government, because if the Government make these airports theirs will be the risk. If we make adequate airports for exaggerated anticipations, what will happen? The Government have to take the risk, a very big risk, in making the airports required for these mammoth aeroplanes. All that is to be done by the State and then it is left to private enterprise in general to reap the advantage of the profit. The Society of British Aircraft Constructors say:
It must not be taken for granted that the mass of airfields and runways laid down for the war will be suitable for commercial air transport operations. Major commercial airports are strictly controlled in position, size, and so forth, by factors which may be unimportant, even undesirable, in war.
That is to be done by the State. We say of civil aviation, "By all means let it develop, let the State assist its development, but if you are to continue after the war promoting a policy of private enterprise and private competition, in a matter which is essentially world-wide, then do it in your stride and do not ask the State to pay."

Air Commodore Helmore: In considering this problem of civil aviation it seems to me that we are tending to place an enormous amount of stress on what to my mind are largely matters of administrative detail. The hon. Member for South East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) and the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Tree) started off by commenting on the desirability of removing control of civil aviation from the Air Ministry and also for dealing with the alleged monopoly of British Overseas Airways. As far as I am concerned my attitude towards the whole problem is that at a time when we are involved in a great war, when the whole social, geographic and economic structure of the world is in the melting pot, to attempt to find complete solutions to such problems is rather like endeavouring to solve a chess problem before the pieces have been

properly arranged on the board. Admittedly these matters are important and should be debated but they are not matters of paramount importance. I listened also with great interest to the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), who provided us with a great deal of mathematics with some of which I disagree, particularly in respect of certain figures which he has quoted.

Mr. Montague: The figures were published. If the hon. and gallant Member wishes I will give him the information.

Air Commodore Helmore: It is a matter we can discuss. It seems to me that some of those figures were a little pessimistic. It must be admitted quite frankly that one has to pay for speed. Even those constituents of the hon. Member to whom he referred sometimes choose to travel by bus and pay a penny instead of walking. They pay that penny for speed. If you want to go faster you have to pay more. I am hoping that improved social conditions will enable many persons to change their standard of living, and so be able to afford to pay for the speed involved in travel by aeroplane. The aeroplane will thus become the bus of the future. We shall be able to pay more through our improved social conditions for more speed.
It is speed that the aeroplane gives the world—a speedy means of transport and a speedy means for the exchange of ideas and contacts. In fact, I wish there were a speedier means of exchanging ideas than is provided by speech in order that we might exchange our ideas more rapidly than we do now. Up to the present we have been discussing these problems chiefly on a basis of administration and organisation. We must get down to the question of providing aircraft and making something factual. It takes only four weeks, as has been proved in this war, to make a Ministry, it may be no better nor worse than any other Ministry, but it takes four years to make a new type of aircraft.
Before I turn to technical matters there is one administrative question to which I would like to refer that was raised by the hon. Member for South East St. Pancras. He disagreed with the idea of instituting an air police force. I do not know on what ground he can object. We are trying to get together with our Empire and Allies to plan the future of


civil aviation. I am informed that active steps have been taken in this direction. To the best of my knowledge the Lord Privy Seal with his customary energy, enterprise and ability has issued an invitation and spread an inviting feast, but whether he has been able to go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in I do not know.
We must get together with our Empire and our Allies and study the air problem broadly, not merely as a commercial or civil undertaking—but as a whole. We have built up in this war a very great comradeship between our fighting men of the air and those of our Allies. We must perpetuate this comradeship which is now fighting aggression in order to suppress future aggression. By arranging for a joint period of training for certain representative airmen of the Allied Nations after the war we should be able to deter or suppress any future attempt to disturb the peace of the world.

Earl Winterton: I understood my hon. Friend the Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) to say that he objected to the establishment of an international air force. He seems to be confusing two things. Surely we should have an Allied air force as strong as possible.

Air Commodore Helmore: I understood my hon. Friend to object in general terms to an air police force.

Sir A. Beit: I referred to an international air police force as a thing of which I approved.

Air Commodore Helmore: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. I misunderstood him. My contention is that we should have an Allied air police force and that this should be one of the subjects which we should discuss with our Empire and our Allies. If this were included as a subject of discussion it would broaden the scope of our invitation and make it more likely to be accepted. It would give the world an opportunity of facing the future with a little more confidence. Unless something is done about this matter all our post-war planning may fall to the ground and we might as well face up to it here and now and make as the first item of our post-war planning our plans for the next war. We shall only be building up in order that what we build may be knocked down

again. We must stop this terrible rhythm of creation and destruction—creation and destruction. I believe that in the air we can find the means of doing this. We can create a striking force for rapidly and finally eliminating aggression.
I had not intended to discuss this particular point so long and would now like to turn to the vital question of making our civil aircraft. As I have said it takes four weeks to set up a Ministry and four years to build an aeroplane. We are faced with an enormous difficulty. We have a war on our hands—we are in the front line and from these Islands can practically see the whites of the enemy's eyes. If this House were asked to decide what percentage of our war aircraft we should be prepared to sacrifice in order to make hypothetical aircraft for peace, I am confident that the percentage conceded would be a very small one. I do not believe that this House or the country would like to see one squadron of our bombers fall out of formation from attacking Berlin, or would countenance the removal from the defence of this country of one squadron of fighters in order that they might be replaced by civil aircraft for the future.
I will endeavour to suggest a compromise whereby without measurably detracting from our war effort the construction of civil aircraft may proceed. There are four stages. The first stage in making an aeroplane is to get some sort of specification of its performance. It has been mentioned in another place that a Committee, under Lord Brabazon, has been formed to advise the Government, in the light of users' requirements and after consulting with experts as to the type of specifications suitable for such aircraft as may be needed after the war. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Air may be prepared to inform the House further on this point. I cannot do this myself because I happen to be a member of Lord Brabazon's Committee. In any event the specifications are now in course of being submitted.
After the specification, the second stage in constructing a new type of aircraft is to get something on the drawing board and this is important, because, of the four years required to make an aeroplane, one year at least is occupied in draughtsmanship and design. We have in this


country a number of master designers, men of great genius and patriotism who have made the finest fighting aeroplanes in the world and expended a lot of midnight oil on the job. I believe they would expend even more midnight oil in order to put civil aviation on the map and in this way one year of the technical process of development would be saved.
The third stage is to get ahead with the necessary technical and scientific research. This is a difficult thing to do in war-time and is a problem for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Aircraft Production. It so happens however that the experiments necessary for creating war aircraft and peace aircraft frequently run on substantially parallel lines. If we are prepared to give a civilian bias to our military research, for example in the construction of power units and other accessories, we should be able to get a long way forward with the technical experiments necessary for developing civil aircraft without detracting from war production.
The fourth point, which is an extremely difficult one because it involves labour, is to get something concrete made. This could only be done, and then in a very limited sense, by using a slack period which only very occasionally occurs in our war factories owing to changes of production needed for the war. If it is feasible, and it may not be, to use some of this occasionally available energy and material, we might at least, if the stage is reached, get some mock-ups or even prototypes constructed.
Apart from the creation of civil aircraft there is one more further technical requirement which is to my mind an essential development before the aeroplane can really come into its own as a transport vehicle. I refer to the provision of means to enable blind landing to be effected. This would enable an aircraft to land under conditions of nil visibility, for example in fog or snow. If we could solve this problem of blind landing we should give the aeroplane the one thing it lacks—regularity. To do this we might well employ some of the skill which we have gained in the art of radiolocation—and this country is the mother of radiolocation—and by employing this and other techniques available secure a very great objective for the air both in war

and peace. Such a technical achievement would be of inestimable value not only to this country, where we suffer from difficult flying conditions, but to the world. We should have taken a step further forward in making this unsinkable aircraft carrier a regular terminus for air transport.
It is very easy to be pessimistic about the future of aviation—just as easy as it was in the old days to be pessimistic about the original railway between Stockport and Darlington. To negate the future of a new means of communication such as this is to negate the possibility of human progress. I believe that the aeroplane is going to prove a great civilising influence by increasing and widening contacts between the peoples of the world and so leaving less time for misunderstanding to grow up.
I would not like to dangle before the eyes of those many young people who have given their work and their lives to aviation any gaudy visions which could not be fulfilled. We have a great Empire, we have only to look up and reach up into the air above us to grasp an even greater empire—the empire of the air.

Mr. Wakefield: I would like to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Watford (Air Commodore Helmore) on that point which he made so well—that speed enables personal contacts to be made, where personal contacts were not possible without the aeroplane. I feel that the approach to the future of aviation which the hon. and gallant Member has taken, is far more in line with reality than the attitude adopted by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) and by hon. Members opposite who spoke in the previous Debate. Like the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Tree), I was disturbed at the most depressing ideas about the future of aviation expressed in the last Debate by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) and others, and in this Debate by the hon. Member for West Islington. It seemed to me that they were looking at it from a narrow, restricted point of view. I felt that if that were the attitude adopted by the people of our country in general, the outlook for our future progress was indeed gloomy. In one way, I rejoice to hear them put forward that view, because I cannot see that a party that has such a narrow and


reactionary view could get into power, in the way the hon. Member for Nuneaton recently suggested. On the other hand, I was depressed beyond measure to think that a great party should have such views about the future of civil aviation, which should not be a party matter, but a really national matter.

Mr. Montague: That is what we want.

Mr. Wakefield: It is on that account, that I am depressed to think that hon. Members opposite take such a narrow and reactionary view. I would like to give another view recently expressed by the President of the American Air Lines in a very remarkable article. Referring to the future of aviation, he said:
To-day, we, in America are faced with perhaps the greatest of all epochal transportation changes. … No other form of transportation ever achieved so much progress in so few years as has aviation. It has explored and conquered a new world—a world much larger than all of the land and waters it covers.
Then he goes on to say, and this, I think, is of much substance:
Surface methods are limited to two dimensions. Trains can only go where tracks go on land; automobiles mostly go where there are paved highways; ships travel only where there is water. Because air is everywhere (an elementary fact that we believe requires constant repetition), the air-realm presents the greatest transportation potential in the history of mankind.
Then he goes on to say that automobiles have not simply done what horses did—the hon. Member for West Islington mentioned stage coaches—but that
they did what horses cannot do, and, in so doing, automobiles created wealth that did not exist before. They enabled millions of people to shorten miles and lengthen hours and to enjoy benefits in every phase of their lives. We believe the increasing use of air will bring a transformation all over the earth even greater than that which automobiles accomplished within continental United States. The use of air will do it in less time, with effects that will dwarf the changes brought by motor cars. Let us not set the cart before the horse. It is unproductive to try to measure the potentials of universal air by the limitations of surface-bound foot-rules.

Mr. Montague: The hon. Member must not misrepresent me. I did not say I was opposed to the use of the air. I did not say that the aeroplane was not a very beneficent instrument with great potentialities. I said the exact reverse. I want to know why, if it is so universal and necessary and progressive, you should want the public to pay for it, without having the right to control the services?

Mr. Wakefield: The hon. Member has raised a point with which I will deal later.

Mr. Montague: Why not get on with it?

Mr. Wakefield: I am quite sure that the attitude of hundreds of thousands of young people in this country is more in line with the view which I have just read out, and which was expressed so vigorously in America. I believe our young people have that vision rather than the view expressed by hon. Members opposite. It is because we on this side of the House believe that it is of such importance to the future of aviation to get on with planning now, that we have raised this matter again. It is because we feel that we have had no adequate satisfaction about the plans the Government are making about the future position regarding two points. We feel that the responsibility for the control and supervision of civil aviation in this country, and its relation with the Dominions and with foreign Powers, ought to be considered, and, as hon. Members who preceded me have said, we believe that responsibility should be divorced from the Air Ministry.
The other point that needs consideration is the future of the British Overseas Airways Corporation, and the policy adopted by the Government of using it as the chosen instrument of a State monopoly. I think it is true to say that the general feeling in the last Debate, and in the Debate which took place last summer in this House, was that civil aviation should be removed from the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Air. I support this view, for these reasons. It seems to me that aviation was developed under the shadow of the last war, and I believe that, if it had not been so developed, under the shadow of a great war, there is every probability that it would not have been allocated to the Air Ministry. After all, 100 years ago, when railways were developed, they were not put under any particular Ministry, although it is possible that, if there had been a great war at the time, they might have been put under the War Office. I do not think that would have been an advantage, and I do not think we would have led the world in the way we did, if the development of railways had been entrusted to the War Office.
I think we are all very glad indeed that a Department, the Air Ministry, was


created for fighting in the air. The Air Ministry is a junior Service. It has had a great struggle in its fight for funds, and I would like to suggest that, when peace returns, there should be another great struggle by the Air Staff to secure adequate funds. The Air Minister indeed is now planning the future of the Royal Air Force and the auxiliary services, to ensure that, in the future, there will be an adequate, whole-time, professional Royal Air Force, with suitable auxiliary voluntary reserves, Air Training Corps and other organisations, able to maintain, should it ever be needed, an adequate defence of this country. It is, I think, important that every consideration be given to ensuring that we do have, from the earliest day in view of our falling birth-rate, and in view of the fact that people can only be taught to fly when they are young—a long-term policy for training and a policy of expansion for 15 or 20 years ahead. We cannot foresee what will be necessary 15 or 20 years ahead.
If civil aviation is under the Air Ministry, if the Secretary of State for Air is responsible for civil aviation as well as for the Service side, he will have a duality of responsibility. In the seeking of funds, the question is bound to arise, of which is to have the money—the Service side or civil aviation. One or other will suffer, and I submit that the Secretary of State for Air ought not to be put in that position. He should have the prime duty of ensuring that the Service side is adequately supported, and, if he does that, he may fail on the civil side. If he supports the civil side to the full, then the Service side may go short. I suggest that it is intolerable, as has been evidenced by the past, that the Secretary of State for Air should have this duality of loyality. For that reason, I suggest that it is desirable to plan the removal of the responsibility for civil aviation from the Air Ministry to a Communications Department. The Admiralty have concentrated upon defence at sea. The organisation of the Admiralty is not fit to consider and control, and operate the sailing of ships, and the services necessary for trade and commerce by means of ships everywhere. The War Office is not a suitable vehicle for controlling and operating the various kinds of transport in this country or abroad, and, because of exactly the same thing, I suggest that the Air Ministry is

not the appropriate Department for operating and controlling civil aviation.
But it is not only the flying of aircraft which must be considered. Closely bound up with the flying of aircraft are the uses of the air for other purposes. Radio-telecommunication is an all-important, integral part of aviation, and that, together with meteorology, with which ships and transport are concerned, should be transferred to a Communications Department, in which you could have, on the one side, control of all home transport activities, coast-wise shipping, roads, railways, canals and civil aviation, all under one head, and, on the other, the air, civil aviation, shipping and telecommunications, all dealing with telecommunication matters which have to be discussed with foreign countries. I suggest that that proposal is more in line with the proper development which civil aviation ought to have than the present provision of having it under the Air Ministry.
An hon. Member earlier made reference to a Transport Command and said we on this side feared a Transport Command. I do not quite know what he meant by that, but I do suggest that it is of the utmost importance that the Air Ministry in the future should have a Transport Command. One of the things from which we suffered at the outbreak of the war was the fact that the Royal Air Force, instead of being the most mobile of our organisations, was completely earthbound and static. It is extremely important that the Royal Air Force should have at its disposal in the future a Transport Command, so that men and the apparatus and equipment required for servicing, can be quickly removed from one part of the world to another, where a danger may exist. That Transport Command should also provide speed of mobility for the Royal Navy and for the Army, and therefore the Air Ministry and the Air Staff, in making their plans for the future and their dispositions, should be able to have their Transport Command able to transport people in accordance with military requirements, which are quite separate from the requirements of civil aviation.
A different approach and attitude of mind are required for these problems. I would like to suggest that such a Transport Command as I have suggested would provide a valuable outlet for civil aircraft which are becoming obsolete. We know


how, in pre-war days, British aviation was at a discount compared with the aviation of other nations, because our aircraft were obsolete, so that the same service and speed could not be given by us, as by other countries. Our merchant fleets of the air could be kept up to date by transferring aircraft as they become obsolete to this Transport Command, where they would be able to render, for many years, an adequate and suitable service. My right hon. Friend, in his reply, may argue, as a reason for retaining civil aviation within the Air Ministry, that research and development are such that it would not be in the interests of civil aviation to remove it. I hope that, after the war, there will not be a continuance of separate Departments of Supply and Aircraft Production. If the Service Departments gave their specifications and requirements, industry, given the necessary support in the way of research and development, is quite capable of producing what the Services and the consumer departments require without these other Departments.
The development of the Mosquito and the Lancaster were done on their own by firms to a great extent. Do not let us forget that. Let us also remember that the first 100 Hurricanes put on the production line were done at the risk of and on the responsibility of a private firm that was concerned with no Government order. Do not let us forget these things at a time when we talk so much of nationalisation and say that everything possible ought to be done by the State for the benefit of the people. Let us realise that private enterprise also has had responsibilities and has carried them out in the past to a great degree. I trust that some of the points that I have put are substantial ones and will receive that careful consideration which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air always gives to those who try to put forward helpful and constructive suggestions in, what is agreed, a very difficult position to be met in the future.
Now I come to the second bone of contention, that of the subject of British Overseas Airways Corporation. I will deal with some of the points made by hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), who said that he was opposed to competition by private interests for private profit. I understood him to say

that he wanted to go forward to a clear understanding and international co-operation. He seemed to suggest that we could not go forward to a clear understanding and international co-operation unless the State ran civil aviation, and that that could not be done if there was competition between private interests for private profit. I am not at all clear—and he gave no arguments in support—why that should be so. We have seen for a century private shipping interests working for private profit in great collaboration and co-operation. In pre-war days the Shipping Conference settled differences much more amicably among themselves on a commercial basis than ever a Government seem to be able to settle things when political considerations arise. There is far more likely to be clear understanding and international co-operation in civil aviation in the future if it is left to business men, in their own way, to work out, in the same way that the shipping men worked out their problems, on a commercial basis. The hon. Member seems to suggest that the interests of nations and of private companies and their profits could not coincide. I do not see that at all. They do not seem to me to be mutually exclusive, but to be supplementary and complementary. If these private interests are not providing the national services, they will not make profit; they only make profit by providing a good service for the convenience of their customers, the general public. When you get a monopoly, whether it is of private enterprise or of the State, you do not get that service which is so highly desirable and essential. That is why I am opposing the retention of British Overseas Airways Corporation in a position which cannot be other than monopolistic.
A century ago, when the trade from India to England was protected by the navigation laws, it was cheaper and quicker to ship by American line from India to New York, and then from New York to Liverpool than to come here direct because of the slow, costly and protective East India Company's route. When these navigation laws were repealed 30 years later, we saw the position reversed, and private interests, the new British steam-powered Mercantile Marine, with competitive zeal, leading the world. If we in this country restrict ourselves to a single State monopoly, or indeed, a private


monopoly for that matter, we shall be in the same position as that which existed at sea 100 years ago with our mercantile commerce. Hon. Members talk much about international organisation. We must be careful not to be confused on that matter. I do not think that there is anybody who would not welcome an International Air Board which would provide for the laying down of standards for first, second and third class aerodromes, the necessary landing equipment, the rules of the air, loading, aircraft structure, minimum requirements for the safety of goods and passengers travelling throughout the world.
Let us have that international board, and let it delegate these powers to various regional boards in different parts of the world where such regional boards could carry on, with an executive, inspecting the international laws that were laid down. We are all in agreement with that kind of internationalisation. When we come down to ownership and control of a central world-wide international authority, we are getting towards an impracticable proposition. I do not agree that because, at the present time, it seems to be an impracticable proposition an attempt should not be made to see if something of that kind cannot be developed. There is in certain parts of the world, in particular Europe, an opportunity where you might create a kind of wagon-lit. There you have densely populated areas and a number of sovereign States, with boundaries closely adjacent, and you have a big Axis Power in Germany which will need, after the war, a transportation system, but which ought not to be allowed to ply or operate aircraft or play any part in operating aircraft for some time to come. That area seems to be a very suitable one for the countries concerned to join together and form a kind of wagon-lit system. If it was successful, it could be extended elsewhere, and if it was not successful, no harm would have been done. The British Overseas Airways Corporation might take an interest in such a European wagon-lit project and be the suitable machinery or method for carrying out such an experiment.

Mr. Petherick: Is there not an essential difference between the wagon-lit system and the air? The wagon-lit system is necessary

in order that a person may get a through carriage from one capital to another, which may be two or three days away, whereas in air it is quite different, as you can get a through aeroplane practically right across Europe.

Mr. Wakefield: The point which my hon. Friend makes is a good one, but after the war there will be a number of practical difficulties in getting across Europe; we shall be in a position to provide a service there, and we ought to be given an opportunity. I am suggesting some kind of wagon-lit organisation for that particular part of the world. If it works, well and good, extend it; if it does not, then no harm can be done.
I hope that progress is being made and that note is being properly taken of Article 22 of the recent agreement between Australia and New Zealand. Article 22 says:
In the event of failure to obtain a satisfactory international agreement to establish and govern the use of international air trunk routes the two Governments will support a system of air trunk routes controlled and operated by Governments of the British Commonwealth of Nations under Government ownership.
I hope that that position is being exploited. It may well be possible to have the earth encircled by an Air Commonwealth line in which the Governments of the British Commonwealth are all interested. The British Overseas Airways Corporation should be the medium or machinery for such a purpose. Such a medium could at the same time take an interest in any other regional part of the world, such as China, South America or Africa and in that way the British Commonewealth would act as one in having interests in various parts of the world, together with other countries interested in a particular part of the world. At the same time, a complete round-the-world service could be given by this British Commonwealth service organisation. I would not have that as a monopoly, but would urge that consideration should be given to various other interests, whether shipping or otherwise, which have experience in other forms of transport, so that they would be able to run their forms of service from point to point in competition with this round-the-world service. Facilities ought to be given, and there is no reason why regulated competition in exactly the same way


as that which has obtained with the shipping companies shoud not be able to be obtained by air lines operating in competition with each other for the benefit not only of our people but of mankind in general.
I hope that I have said enough to show that there is deep reason for the fears that exist throughout the country, that if British Overseas Airways Corporation is kept in a monopolistic position, the visions of the air expressed by the President of American Air Lines, which the Americans and so many of our people foresee, will not be realised by this country. There is a great opportunity for vision before us. The air age is now with us and in the next 20 or 30 years there will be the same big expansion of traffic, of trade and commerce on account of the annihilation of time and distance as there was for the first 40 years of the development of the steam age. Are we to seize the opportunity, as did our forefathers, and play that part in world progress which, by our achievements and our exertions, in this country we are entitled to play in her development; or are we to sink back and become a fifth rate Power? Our ability to live, and indeed, our ability to exist, depends upon our ability to trade and to carry the goods and provide the services in the world. That, in turn, depends upon a vigorous effort, the taking of risks, initiative and all those things which can be done so much better by competitive private enterprise than by a monopoly, whether run by the State or in the name of the State. I hope that, in the plans that are being made for the future, our young men who are fighting our battles in the air so magnificently will not find, on their return, that the very thing they are fighting to preserve—some measure of individual liberty, or freedom for themselves and their families—has gone and that in its place is the dead hand of monopolistic State bureaucracy.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I rise to give general support to the case which has been unfolded by my hon. Friends the Members for South-East St. Pancras (Sir Alfred Beit) and Harborough (Mr. Tree) in speeches informed by such knowledge and delivered with such skill. The case has been reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) who has just spoken. He, at any rate, has played his part in pre-

paring the youth of this generation for the responsibilities which they will have to undertake in carrying on the tradition of our valiant pilots. We are very much indebted to these hon. Gentlemen and others, for directing once again the beam of public attention on to this important aspect of national policy. In it the future of Britain is very much involved. For great federations like the United States and Russia, with vast land areas under their control, air transit may be a convenience; for this small island, with its widespread and scattered responsibilities, it is a necessity. There is no "globoloney" about this for us. This is a deadly earnest matter. Nor is the task which we are invited by the hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion to undertake a new one.
The science of aerodynamics has not been newly discovered; several generations have been brought up with some knowledge of it and under its influence. No, the matter is not a fresh one, nor do we come freshly to it. We have been pioneers. There is no country in the world that has run services so extensive over the seas as Britain. In 1911, on the day when King George V came to the Throne, we instituted our first mail service—letters were carried from London to Windsor, a distance of 20 odd miles. By the time that his late Majesty celebrated his Jubilee we were running a regular mail service to Australia, 13,000 miles away. No, we are no newcomers. The Cape to Cairo service was pioneered by us. The jungle and the swamps were overcome, the weather conditions were baffled, and a causeway of aerodromes was made to stretch from north to south of that great continent. The tree threw out branches; not the least important of them was the West to East Africa service, which the Americans have been so glad to use. That service has indeed been a lever with which we have been able to crack the Axis. When it was established, it was the most noteworthy achievement in the history of aviation. It has been equalled, if not excelled, by the setting up of a regular service across the North Atlantic which had never before been flown in winter—a service which has continued throughout this war for three years, a service which has been run by our pilots where other pilots have been daunted. No, in this matter we are pioneers. We have to go to no capital with our cap in our hands and our knees


trembling. Any nation which makes an agreement with us may consider itself fortunate.
What do we want? Let us be clear what we want and who can give it to us. The Government have a part to play. What is the part? In the first place to run services over the world you need aeroplanes. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Watford (Air Commodore Helmore), in a competent and expert speech, gave the Government some advice. You need aeroplanes. Personally I regret, and have frequently said so, that we have concentrated on the development of machines that are described as fighting machines to the exclusion of transport machines. I believe, taking a survey of the war as a whole, that it can be shown that the transport machine has played a part approaching, though not of course attaining in importance, the part played by combat aeroplanes. The key position of Crete was gained for the Germans by transport aeroplanes. Owing to transport aeroplanes, they have been able to carry in this war an air borne Army. We have never recorded such an achievement. After bringing an armada 3,000 miles across the sea from America to North Africa, we halted within 100 miles of our objective while the Germans, by means of transport aeroplanes, put an Army into Tunis which held up our progress for six months.
I believe it to be unfortunate that we have concentrated on fighting aeroplanes to the exclusion of transport aeroplanes, unfortunate both for peace and for war. There may be some explanation of that, there may have been some agreement that America would make the transport aeroplanes and we would make the others. I do not wish to indulge in reproaches, for anyone can look back and say that we could have done better if we had done something else. That is not my object. My object is to stress the importance of the transport aeroplane. We are told that there are some designs on the drawing board for transport aeroplanes. Of course, they cannot mature for some years. Even though that be the case, even though peace should supervene before we have the aeroplanes, I do not think that we shall be permanently disadvantaged. After all, the British Overseas Airways Corporation, or any other concern running aeroplanes, is selling seats, not aircraft,

and it will, with the Secretary of State's permission, obtain the best available aircraft at the time. Therefore I shall not despair even if these new models have not matured. We have heard about them—the Brabazon, the York, the Tudor, and so forth. The hen has cackled; I hope the eggs will be good, even if they are not served up on the breakfast table for some time.
So much for aircraft. The next matter in which the Government can assist is in aerodromes. Birds have nests, ships have quays, engines have sheds, but the British Overseas Airways Corporation has no aerodromes. It shares aerodromes. Last week in the Debate we heard something about a terminal airport in Scotland. "Aerodrome" it is called. We all know exactly where it is, but we must not say. It is in Scotland. When that aerodrome was mentioned the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes) said: "Good Heavens, Scotland has a terminal aerodrome! What about Wales?." Sir, is the English rose born to blush unseen? Is it not to be watered by my right hon. Friend? There is no English terminal aerodrome capable of taking a four-engined aeroplane within taxi distance, or a short railway distance of London.

Major C. S. Taylor: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the fact the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes) when he was pleading for Wales, had forgotten that during his earlier speech he was pleading for nationalisation?

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Internationalisation.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: That, doubtless, is a very important diplomatic matter, but I was on a botanical matter for the moment, on the matter of the sweet English rose that I wished to see growing in the soil of the Home Counties. Why have we not such an aerodrome? Perhaps rather I should ask, when are we to have such an aerodrome? My right hon. Friend can take refuge, as is sometimes done in rose gardens, beneath the heavy Victorian skirts of the war. He can say: "The war explains why we have not given you such an aerodrome; it is because we have had to concentrate upon other matters." I accept that, but I plead for a hastening


of the process whereby we may have such an aerodrome. Why? There is an enormous transport service—traffic—to Africa and to the East, and all manner of distinguished personages, not only British but foreign, are having a conspectus of our capacity to run airlines. If they are put in an uncomfortable aerodrome and, while waiting for the service to depart, are made to sleep four in a room—distinguished foreign potentates, overcrowded in that way—

Lt.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to Terminal X in making these allegations?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir. Scotland has been dealt with by me in a proper order of priority. I have finished with Scotland. Surely I may make a plea for England. I do not wish distinguished personages to be overcrowded and treated with scant attention in the aerodromes which they use. I do not make any complaint about the past. Nobody wishes to do that, because we have had great achievements, of which my right hon. Friend may well be proud, excelled by no other Power, not even by America. I am merely pleading that he may be able to tell us that we shall have a London airport of great and adequate dimensions and with all the facilities that go with air travel. Those are the material aids the Government can give. There remains, however, the bigger quest which has so much agitated the House again to-day, namely, the world framework within which we are to operate.
What kind of agreements are we to make? My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) wishes us to make operational agreements. He has unfolded to the House a charter or articles of association for "World Airways Limited," as my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary so appositely called it. All nations, great and small, are to participate in this undertaking. That is the proposal. Is it a sound proposal? I said last time that that international bird will not fly. It is a cockatoo. It will screech, but it will not soar. Let me tell the House why I think that. The world is not on one level of civilisation and development. There are many different nations and races. There are many degrees of independence. Very few nations have the capacity to run air lines, and they are

mainly the industrial nations. The fact that technical knowledge is required, that experience is necessary, that the study of meterology is an essential element in the running of such services, that the development of radio plays a great part, limits the number of nations which can effectively run air services. Then why bring in all the others?

Mr. Bowles: My right hon. Friend has referred to the proposal I have made as a cockatoo. He seems to be a parrot repeating himself from the Debate that took place nine months ago and still saying he does not understand what it is about at all.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: That is a very vacuous observation. I am not, in fact, repeating myself, but if I were the acid test would be whether I was talking sense or not. I am, at any rate, presenting an argument to the House which cannot be dismissed by a shrug of the shoulders or a disapproving phrase, a pouting phrase, from my hon. Friend.

Dr. Russell Thomas: By a cockatoo.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I say that these scientific requirements limit the possibilities and when you come to analyse them you find that there are, in fact, only three main groups of nations which can run world services You come down to Russia, the United States and Britain together with her associates. Those are the three main groups. Russia—[Interruption.] I am talking of main groups. My hon. Friend interrupts me and says "China." This matter is really based upon industry. Military power and air power are based upon industry, and I say that the three main groups must be—I hope that the Dutch and other States will be associated with us or in the European group which I propose to mention in a moment—Russia, the United States and Britain. I thought that was understood.
What is the attitude of Russia? It is not defined. The subject presses, days pass; peace, let us hope, approaches, with the assistance of the Red Armies. We cannot stand still and wait for Russia to declare herself. Then we come to the United States. The United States has declared herself. President Roosevelt has spoken and he has said that the United States will continue to place reliance on


private enterprise. The great Republic may be misguided, it may be wrong, but that is one of the hard facts of the world which must be faced—the United States will not be in such a corporation as my hon. Friend envisages. I hope he does not think that I am disputing his sincerity. I am disputing the case which he puts, and I say that the United States has rejected this proposal. Therefore, let us deal with the world as it is and get what we can. If we cannot obtain universality well, then, what can we obtain which is short of universality?
There are certain principles which must be accepted. The first principle is contained in the answer to the question: "Should a nation have control of its own domestic airways or should these airways be controlled by other nations?" The United States is not going to allow any international body to control its internal airways. Do we, then, start from the principle that each nation controls its own internal airways? My hon. Friend behind me says "Yes." He agrees that each nation must control its own airways in the manner it thinks best. The next principle which has to be decided is, when there is a voyage outside a country and a landing is made at a terminal, is that landing to be made as of right? In other words, are you to place terminal airports on the same basis as seaports? Are they to be open to the world subject to the fulfilment of safety and other general provisions? I should imagine that we would agree with that.
The next question is the right of innocent passage. President Roosevelt has accepted the principles I have mentioned. He has also accepted the right of innocent passage, namely, that you may fly over the territory of another State. That is a very great advance. In the Paris Convention, unqualified national sovereignty was accepted. A State could say: "We shall not allow you to fly over this or that territory because of security reasons," and the Government could also say where landings were to be made. What was the result? The result was that our service to India was interrupted because of the attitude of Italy, and, again, because of the attitude of Persia. Is that going to be tolerated in the post-war world? Surely the right of innocent passage must be accepted? An international authority, in my submission—and I would like to

know what the Secretary of State thinks about this—must be enabled, in cases where a State obstructs the passage of a trunk route, to require an aerodrome to be made and a service to be given or supply these needs itself. It is unreasonable that small and undeveloped States should be enabled to obstruct the air transport of the world. That is where international authority can come in.

Mr. Bowles: Do I understand that big countries such as ours should have the right to, say, build an aerodrome in Iraq, even though the Iraq Government refused that right?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I said that these are matters properly to be dealt with by international authority. Operation was not one of them but administration was. I accept the case put forward by my hon. Friends who have moved and supported the Amendment and I am trying to develop it.
Finally, there is the question of whether aircraft proceeding from one State should have the right to pick up passengers in another State, not to take them back but to deliver them either elsewhere or somewhere else within that State. That is the principle which President Roosevelt rejects. He says that we may have the right to go to New York en route to Australia, that we may stop in New York or San Francisco but cannot pick up any passengers in New York and drop them at San Francisco. How does that effect us? If Britain is the unit which is to enter into a convention what have we, in this little compact country, with few air lines and with few places to be visited by air, to offer? Britain is diminutive compared with the United States and, therefore, under such a principle, if it be persisted in, we gain nothing. If, however, we enter a convention as an Empire then we have an area greater than that of the United States and in return for a refusal of the right to pick up and land passengers or cargo in America we shall be able to refuse a like convenience or obtain it in return for a like convenience. Therefore, it is imperative that we should, if possible, enter this conference as an Empire, as a unit. Every part of that Empire has an advantage in associating itself with us.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary was a delegate to the


Imperial Conference which was held. We have been told that complete agreement was reached and I hope that that agreement covered this matter. If I know anything of my hon. and gallant Friend, who is highly experienced in flying, is a great enthusiast and has rendered great service, I should imagine it would have been included as a pre-requisite to any convention. However, I can only express the hope, because I think the matter is important. If we are to proceed as an Empire—and that does not depend upon the Minister; I am not making a criticism, but expressing an aspiration—then we shall be on the same footing as the United States, another great unit. Then there is Europe, a continent composed of so many different peoples, speaking so many languages and having so many Governments. The continuance of that anarchy is inimical to the interests of peace. Here is an opportunity—there have been others and there will be others again to consolidate that Continent and make a United States of Europe. Then the Dutch, Swedish and Belgian air lines will fall into place either as part of that unit—and I am glad my hon. Friend behind agrees with that—or as part of the British Empire unit, or as part of both. At any rate, you will have three groups to form a tripod on which the world can stand securely—the British Empire, the United States of America and the United States of Europe. I do not know where the next leg, the fourth, will be inserted in the stool, because that depends on Russia. On that matter I remain silent, but hopeful. It is for Russia to decide. Russia is two and a half times the size of Europe and of itself forms a great unit. However, I hope Soviet policy may allow the world to rest on four legs rather than three. There may be one or two other legs sprouting in the course of time but there are enough for our immediate need—for stability.
I hope I have made it plain to my right hon. Friend that my speech, in so far as it is backward-looking, is one of pride in our achievements. I do not think we need defer to any nation in the world. In so far as my speech is forward-looking it is one of trust that under the direction of my right hon. Friend we shall avail ourselves of our great opportunities.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I desire, in the first place, to follow

the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha). The chief point in his speech was that he desired to see the growth of the rule that would make the air free, that we should see that the rule enshrined in past ages by which a State controlled all the ground from the middle of the earth to all the sky above it to the heavens, and by which it could forbid and control the passage of aircraft, should be eliminated, and that there should be, all over the world, the free right to the use of the air. That was a most admirable sentiment, but we have to regard that in the light of the second major point of my right hon. Friend's speech, namely, that the number of Powers in this world who can run air lines across the globe is limited. My right hon. Friend said that there are only three to be taken into account—the United States of America, the British Commonwealth and Empire and the U.S.S.R. He dismissed the U.S.S.R. because, he said, we do not know what their policy is. Have they ever been asked? Has any inquiry been directed from this country to the U.S.S.R. to ask if they would be prepared to collaborate in some system? We would like to know. My right hon. Friend could have dismissed the U.S.S.R. on other grounds, because so far they have never run any air lines at all outside their own boundaries. Therefore, if we leave the U.S.S.R. out of it there remain the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States of America, the only two countries, as my right hon. Friend says, who can run these grand international air routes.
I invite the House to link these two together. Freedom of the air all over the globe is to be linked with the right of these two nations to operate it. That is what the claim of my right hon. Friend amounts to—the sharing out of the domination of the air of the world between Great Britain, the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States of America. On what basis? He gave credit to the sentiment and the skill of those who moved and seconded the Amendment and some others who have spoken. What was the tenour of their remarks? There must he no internationalism, there must be no nationalism. Taking the sum total of their remarks, the system that he was supporting was one which meant competition between


the States and competition between organisations within those States. What a vision of the world we are to see after the war—parcelled out between a couple of selected States and those quarrelling within themselves and within their own boundaries, quarrelling between different organisations and different aeroplane companies, a kind of set-up which could only lead to another war bigger than the one we have the advantage of seeing at present.

Mrs. Tate: Advantage?

Mr. Hughes: Apparently, judging from the enthusiasm with which the prospect is supported in other quarters of the House. I must say a word about Wales by way of justification. I have quarrelled with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not quarrel at all with his claim that the rose should get the same fair play as the leek seeks to get. The only claim that he has made on behalf of Wales or Scotland is that, if a large seaport is desired, the place where it should be should be adjudged upon its merits. If, upon its merits, Wales is the right place, with all respect to his claim for England's share, it is to Wales that it should go. That is the only claim that we make. I apologise for the parenthesis, but I think it only right as a Welshman that I should make it.
It is very significant that this Debate should have taken place. We had a Debate only a fortnight ago on the subject that it was proper that the main air lines of the world should be international lines, and it attracted a fair amount of public attention. It is amazing to find that the same topic should occupy another day now. There are subjects of considerable importance which have been seeking the attention of the House for a considerable period. There are local government, the price of the acquisition of land and the location of industry, and I could give a series of others. It has been sought again and again to obtain time to discuss them, yet somehow, though there was a Debate based upon an Amendment leading to international control, within a fortnight we have another Debate. What are the influences? Where have they come from? We are entitled to judge, from the speeches that have been made on the other side of the House, that they are the in-

flences that desire to foster an Imperialist nationalist outlook on the development of civil aviation, to see the beautiful outcome of the profit making system, which has done so well for this country that before the war we had to draw a blanket over vast masses of our organisations to hide them in shame from the rest of the world. Now, in this new sphere, they are so eager and anxious to introduce this element of private profit and control that they are able to bring back to Parliament within a fortnight a discussion which we have already had.
Perhaps, too, one ought to comment upon the fact that the attention this topic has received from Members of the Government has varied on these two days. When the topic of discussion centred on international regulation and control, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) and seconded by myself, the Members of the Government concerned were content to be represented by the Parliamentary Secretary. We had a very pleasant discussion and he was able to dispose to his own satisfaction of the arguments for internationalisation. To-day the attitude of the Front Bench is going to be a blessing upon those who have not come here to support internationalisation but national competition, and competition within the nation, and we find that for most of the time the Treasury Bench has been graced not only with the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary but of the Secretary of State himself.

Mr. Wakefield: It shows the importance of it.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: It also shows with equal significance—and I say it with regret—the attitude the Government appear to be taking upon this fundamental matter. It shows that they are apparently more inclined to international competition than to international organisation. I do not want to repeat anything I said in the Debate a fortnight ago. There is only one thing that seems to me to be fundamental in this approach to the control of civil post-war aviation. There is a doctrine which is accepted as a doctrine of international law—the doctrine of national sovereignty. It has been mentioned in this Debate already as a doctrine the result of which would be the control of the air above it by each national sovereign independent State. I believe


that it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield). That doctrine, as long as it is accepted and acted upon, must necessarily defeat any attempt to organise this world upon a basis of peace. As long as every country demands the right to be national, sovereign and independent, it is impossible to have a world peace organisation. It must be, describe it as you like, a world set-up in which the only arbitrament for a decision must be conflict and war. That is inevitable.
I would be the last to suggest that it is possible to legislate this notion out of existence. It has been accepted, if not in terms by implication, by the statesmen of the countries and by the peoples of this world for almost 200 years. It cannot be legislated out of existence. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it grew up after the event; when sovereign independence became a fact the doctrine of sovereign independence was accepted as a governing rule of relationship between States. We have to turn that back. We have to get away from that idea or there never will be world peace. How are we to do it and get the acceptance of something which tears away some little bit of the governing idea of national sovereign independence of States? We can only do it gradually. We can only do it by stages.
There is only one possible approach at the present time by which we can override it. That approach is to be found in the field of the air. No country at the present time would face the idea of a general international army. Very few countries would accept the idea, within an effective range, of an international currency. Very few would get together and accept the idea of an international tariff boundary. None of these is a practical possibility. There is only one practical possibility, and that alone is to be found in an international organisation of the main trunk air routes of the world. It is the only practical possibility for beginning to break down the theory of national sovereignty which is inimical to the peace of the world. I am prepared to be told there are difficulties and to hear that this State or that may not be able to co-operate. But we in this country, if we are really anxious for peace, must hold ourselves up as ready and willing to operate the air internationally on its main trunk routes after the war, or—and I say it with all seriousness—we cannot truly

say that we are building after the war for peace and not for the next war.

Mr. Perkins: The object of this Amendment—and my name stands second on it—was to draw the attention of the House to the urgent need of getting civil air transport from the control of the Air Ministry. Attempts have been made by various hon. Members to ride it off. We have had an interesting discussion on the virtues of cockatoos and parrots and theoretical arguments about nationalisation. I suggest to hon. Members interested in those subjects that they could not do better than go down to the Oxford Union and raise them there. I will endeavour to bring the Debate down to earth. I do not believe in flying in the stratosphere when one cannot do a circuit and bump without pranging one's aircraft. There is a fundamental difference of outlook in this House and the country between those who fly and those who do not. Those who fly suffer from the disease of airmindedness, and those who do not fly suffer from the disease of acrophobia. Those hon. Members who suffer from aerophobia bitterly regret that the art of aerostation was ever invented. They would like to stifle it and destroy it, but they cannot do this and so wish to control it by every possible method in their power.
We who suffer from the other disease of air-mindedness admit fully and frankly that the aeroplane has been misused in two wars, but we believe that ultimately it will bring untold blessings to mankind. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) said that it would bring untold blessings to mankind, but not next week, or next year, but it may be no years off. If the Secretary of State at the beginning of this century, in 1900, had gone courting a girl in the neighbouring village he would have found himself in considerable difficulties. All the young gentlemen in the neighbouring village would have been after his blood, because there was an artificial barrier between one village and another. If a boy went courting a girl in a neighbouring village he did not get the girl, but he got a black eye. In that narrow space of 45 years these artificial barriers between villages have been broken down by the motor bus. Just as the motor bus has broken down artificial village frontiers in the narrow space of 45 years, so we believe that in the next 45 years the


civil air liner can break down national frontiers to the ultimate benefit of mankind.
Civil air transport will never come into its own and will never be able to fulfil the rightful purpose for which it was given to us until we can get it away from those men in the Air Ministry who suffer from aerophobia. In the past we have had many Debates on civil aviation and I have listened to most of them. Never at any time have I heard any hon. Member get up, except the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary, and say that civil aviation is perfectly housed in the Air Ministry. I am thankful to-day that a great milestone has been passed, for the official Labour Party, headed by the hon. Member for West Islington, has come out whole-heartedly on our side. He has told the House that his party think that civil aviation should come away from the Air Ministry. Now we are all united. We may differ as to where it should go, but we are united in the main.
He twitted us. He said we differed where it ought to go. I could also throw stones. I remember that we had a very interesting Debate about this time last year, when the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) made a most brilliant and interesting speech from the Opposition Front Bench. He did not agree with the hon. Member for West Islington. The hon. Member for West Islington wants civil aviation to go to the Ministry of Transport while the hon. Member for Burnley wanted it set in a house of its own. Although we may have our little differences of opinion, so also have the Labour Party. The great thing is that all political parties in this House are unanimous on the point that it must go—except of course, the Secretary of State for Air. I am not so certain of the Under-Secretary. I had to read some speeches of his the other day and they suggested to me that, perhaps, after all, he was on our side.
I want to have a heart-to-heart talk with the Secretary of State to-day. I have no doubt that he is extraordinarily proud of the great part that his Department has played in the development of civil transport during the last 20 years. I confess that last Sunday I did not go to church. Instead, I sat down and read a most interesting report called the Report

of the Committee on Inquiry into Civil Aviation. It inquired into the whole question of civil aviation after 20 years of Air Ministry rule. I read that Report twice and I was greatly shocked with what I found in it. At that time, in 1938, our air lines in Europe were almost nonexistent, and where they did exist they were flown with obsolete machines, many of which were fit only for the British Museum. An hon. Member in this House said that they were the laughing stock of Europe. Immense sums of money were spent every year with Swiss and Belgian air lines to carry British mails. The British Empire routes to the East and to Singapore were a bad second to the Royal Dutch lines. I believe that if it had not been for the war we should have been swept out of the sky. Only in Africa did we excel, but there we were up against no competition. It should be recorded that so short were we of aircraft just before the war that the operating organisation at that time had to knock off all passengers on the Empire routes in order to concentrate on mails. We had no available aircraft. Our great Dominion lines were run by German and American aircraft and our own air lines in this country were also run by German and American aircraft. So far as I know, unless within the last six months, no British Prime Minister had ever flown from this country in a British machine.
In this country the municipal airports, for which the Air Ministry are directly responsible because they urged the municipalities to build them in 1928, were becoming white elephants, fit only for housing estates. The London Airport was definitely second class. We had no line over the South Atlantic, and so we merrily paid German and French companies £100,000 a year to run our mails. We had no lines across the Pacific, although America had one. That was the position after 20 years of Air Ministry rule. No doubt the Secretary of State is proud of the great achievements of the Air Ministry in civil aviation, but I am not. I consider that it was 20 years neglect, characterised by a deplorable lack of vision, during which time our civil air transport was nobody's baby. The Report of the Inquiry said:
We view with grave disquiet the position disclosed by our inquiry.


Before I point out some of the advantages of removing civil aviation from the Air Ministry, let me briefly examine the case which I have no doubt the Secretary of State will put up to-day. Nine months ago he put up a very interesting case. He produced many arguments, but I will merely summarise the main ones. He said he thought that if it was moved to some other Department it would be difficult, and much harder, for the operating companies to obtain supplies, equipment and spares. I do not quite know what he meant by that, and I would like to ask him: Are they happy now? Have they got all the spares and equipment they want? Is their maintenance 100 per cent.? It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman will have to explain that argument at some length. Does he really mean that if civil aviation is taken away from his Department and handed over to some other Department that his Department, out of spite, will cut off supplies? Is that his argument?
The next argument he produced was the three Reports, called the Lamplugh, Gorrell and Cadman Reports. It was obvious to me that he had not read those Reports, or that if he had read them, he obviously did not understand them. In the case of the Lamplugh Report he misquoted what was said. According to him, the Report said it was almost impossible to take civil aviation away from the Air Ministry, or words to that effect. He used the words "almost impossible," but as a matter of fact, that Report said nothing of the kind. It said:
Unless urgently necessary, it would be unwise,
an entirely different thing. I think I can dismiss that argument, because obviously the right hon. Gentleman had not read the Reports or he did not understand them.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I accept that one.

Mr. Perkins: Then, as to design and research. He told us that if civil aviation were moved to another Department, it would not get the same facilities for design and research. Civil air transport in this country has never had one penny spent on it for design and research. All the money was grabbed for the Royal Air Force; every farthing was put into the coffers of the Royal Air Force to produce Spitfires and Hurricanes to win the Battle

of Britain. Nothing was allocated to civil aviation. If we can only have our own Department, we will do far better. We will have our own design and research department. The crowning fallacy of all was when the Secretary of State used some such words as these: "If you take civil aviation away from my Department and put it in another Department, no young man or young woman in my Department and in the new Department will have the same zeal for flying." Those are the words he used—"the same zeal for flying." He suggested that all these civil servants in civil aviation are merrily flying up and down the country and are keen on flying. What are the facts? None of them fly. None of them can fly. They have not got aircraft of their own and there are no internal air lines in this country, except over the water. He himself, as Secretary of State, has given a direct order that no civilian shall fly an R.A.F. machine without special permission. Therefore to suggest that these men are flying all over the country—I have no doubt whatever they would like to—is a complete travesty of the facts. They go by train and by car.
Now I come to the advantages of getting civil aviation away from the Air Ministry. Unfortunately, these plans have to be laid for the future. Decisions have to be taken and I think it is unfair to expect the Secretary of State to take those decisions, because he has not the time. There are matters of very great urgency, and I will mention some of them. There is the whole question of terminal airports in London for the Empire. Has one been decided upon yet? If it has, has the land been bought, or are we waiting for speculators to have the first rake off? In the future, are we to be sucked by propellors or squirted by jets? What is the future of British Overseas Airways? Are we to have one chosen instrument or five or six? Are we to have a Port of London air authority to control all the airfields round London? What is to happen to our municipal aerodromes? Are they to be white elephants and will local authorities be free to use them for housing estates?
What is to happen to all the people in the aircraft industry? Are they to be unemployed? What is to happen between us and the United States of America? It seems to me quite unfair to expect the


Secretary of State to settle these problems. He has already got a plateful. He is no doubt now planning the air war for the new front when it opens. He has on his hands the Battle of Berlin, the Battle of the Pacific, the Battle of Italy, the daily Battle of the High Seas, and shortly he will have new fronts—perhaps in Norway, France or Belgium. It seems to me that the Secretary of State has already too much to do. I want to take this load off his shoulders in order to leave him absolutely free to go all out in the fight against the Hun.
There is another and shorter reason, the question of which Department is to negotiate with the U.S.A. His Department has been for the last four years on bended knees, cap in hand, asking for favours from the United States—"Please lend us aircraft." Is his Department the right one to go now and stand up for British rights in any future conference with the United States? It seems to me it is vital that it must be taken away from my right hon. Friend's Department before that conference takes place. I believe the time is ripe now, and by now I mean immediately, when this hitherto unwanted child can be weaned from its tired and bored mother.
I want to go on to another subject which has been touched upon, the subject of aircraft. I remember that nine months ago the House was very worried about the position. I for one am very much happier now than I was. I know that we have our critics. People say it is wrong to build civil aircraft in war-time, but unfortunately these critics do not realise that an aircraft that is meant to take passengers in peace can also take soldiers in war, and when we open these new fronts on the Continent or in the Pacific we shall want every single air transport upon which we can lay our hands. We cannot have too many. Any air transports we are building now will be used in this war. My critics will say that if we design one now it will not fly until 1948 or 1949. Therefore those design staffs who are working now on designing bombers for 1948 or 1950 are, in my view, wasting their time. I believe the war will be over by that time. I suggest that the right course is to switch over from designing military machines for 1948 or 1950 and concentrate all that effort on building civil machines for that period.
We have the York, the Tudor and Brabazon. Just one word about the Brabazon. It is going far too slowly. About six months ago—I admit I am absolutely out of date—I made inquiries from a friend of mine who knows someone in the works. He told me that somewhere about 25,000 drawings would be needed. He also told me that they were turning them out at the rate of 10 a week. I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether he will tell the House how many years it will take to complete 25,000 drawings if they are being produced at the rate of 10 a week? Perhaps he will tell the House the answer to that question. On the question of this Brabazon aircraft I suggest that we are going too slowly. I will add two constructive suggestions. At the moment this machine is in the hands of one firm. Is it wise to leave it in the hands of one firm or one designer? Should it not be a great national venture and should not we rope in all the brains of the aircraft industry? The second suggestion is, Is it wise to concentrate entirely on one machine? When we went in for airships we built two. One flew and one did not. When we went out to win the Schneider cup we had two machines. One flew. The other did not. Therefore I suggest we ought to have two Brabazons, two machines of that size being undertaken in the country now in case one should be a failure.
The question of engines is, I am afraid, very unsatisfactory. Nothing is being done at all. We are still designing military engines for the fictitious war which is to come off in the year 1950. I would like to switch over a portion of that designing staff to the work of designing some civil engines for that time. I do not know what has come over the Secretary of State. A big change has taken place in him during this last few years. He is now a born pessimist. His view is, I believe, that as far as the industry is concerned the vast majority of the people will be unemployed when peace comes and that the vast majority of those in the R.A.F. will be unemployed. That is a very shortsighted view. I do not believe that is necessary. I do not believe that we ought to scatter to the winds all this great accumulation of skill and experience in the factories and in the R.A.F. The Secretary of State has lost his spirit, drive, initiative and love of adventure. I do not know whether it is a case of lack


of moral fibre, or whether it is a case of loss of nerve or, "Jam veniet tacito, curva senecta pede" or whether he is too busy. I do not know what it is, but there has been a change. I remember that only 15 years ago, when the Secretary of State was the protegé of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), for the whole of three weeks or one month of the summer he went up and clown the country as a great crusader who was out to kill the dragon of unemployment: "We can cure unemployment. We have only to spend £200,000,000 and unemployment in this country will disappear for ever." Instead of that great crusader he now sits back with his feet on the table and arms folded and is completely resigned to the fact that the vast majority of the people in the industry will be unemployed the moment the last shot is fired. He makes no effort to plan for the future.
I know that for a Member of this House to put up a suggestion to the Air Ministry is quite fatal. It is automatically turned down, particularly if it comes from me, as I have had to criticise them once or twice in the past, but I will say this for the sake of my own conscience. If you compare the total number of people employed in our main air line, British Overseas Airways, and divide that number by the number of machines they have got, and do the same thing with American air lines, you reach the conclusion that to keep an air liner in the air employs about 100 people. In one case it is 95, in the other 121. Let us call it, roughly, 100 to keep one air liner in the air. If by any stretch of the imagination we could keep 10,000 air liners in the air in the Empire we would find permanent employment for 1,000,000 boys out of the R.A.F. I know that 10,000 is quite impossible now, but I think it should be our ultimate aim. I think we ought to aim at a figure after the war of 2,500, which would employ about 250,000 people out of the R.A.F., and work up by 500 a year until we reach that figure of 10,000, giving permanent employment for 1,000,000 of our R.A.F. boys.
The Secretary of State will say that that is all right for the R.A.F. but what about the industry? The Civil Aeronautics Board in America has stated that they are planning for almost 500,000 planes of

all kinds in the States by the year 1950. The vast bulk of those, probably 95 per cent., will be small aircraft, air taxis or private owner machines, or machines of that sort—a kind of four-seater Ford car of the air. If, in America, there is a market for 500,000 aircraft, surely in our own Empire there is a similar market. My right hon. Friend must not neglect that market. Let us design now a very light aircraft, which can be produced by mass production and ultimately sold for £200, £300 or £400. Let us make 12 of them and send them out to the Dominions; let them lie in the sun and the snow; let them bounce about, and let us get the bugs out of them. Then, when the war is over, we can compete with our American friends. If we delay, we shall lose this market, which ought to be ours because we were the pioneers of light aircraft, and it is the type of aircraft in which, above all, we have always excelled. I beg my right hon. Friend to come out of his cocoon, and to drag the Air Ministry from their Little England culs-de-sac and to think Imperially.

Mr. Granville: I do not wish to stand between the right hon. Gentleman and his exit from his cocoon for more than a few minutes, but I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) on a very powerful and constructive speech. My hon. Friend on the last occasion when he made a speech of a similar kind had something to do with the appointment of the Cadman Committee of Inquiry. I believe that one of the subjects referred to in the inquiry by Lord Cadman was the setting-up of a Ministry of Civil Aviation. I hope that the persuasive speech to which we have just listened and the challenge which the hon. Gentleman has made to my right hon. Friend will have equally important results in the setting-up of a Ministry of Civil Aviation.
I must confess that before the hon. Gentleman made his speech I thought, listening to the speeches of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) and the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes), that this was a discussion on the electoral truce. Speeches of that type would be better made in a debate on foreign affairs or even in a debate on the war. If these debates are to be challenges between that side of the House and this side on whether the future


of civil aviation should be on a national or an international basis, the post-war civil aviation of this country will never get airborne at all. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) was a very valuable contribution to the Debate, and I look forward to hearing the reply of the Secretary of State to many of the important points which my right hon. Friend put forward.
I observe in the newspapers that there are to be several changes in the personnel of the organisation of the British Overseas Airways Corporation, and I hope that the Secretary of State is going to confirm that, or to give the House of Commons some official statement about what is behind these contemplated changes. I hope that, whether the 1939 Act is going to be repealed or not, now that the Chairman and the Director-General of British Overseas Airways Corporation have settled down to the job, they are going to be left to get on with it. I was one of those who regretted that men of the calibre of Mr. Clive Pearson, who, I think, made a considerable contribution to the organisation of civil aviation in this country, left British Overseas Airways as a result of criticism. What civil aviation needs is experience and expert leadership. I can think of no industry where experience is more important. It is not only an expert industry, but it is a complicated and in some respects a dangerous one. If I may suggest it what civil aviation in this country needs is more of the practical planners, and less of the political play boys. Whenever civil aviation has got going in this country some enthusiastic amateur has come along, backed very often by the Treasury, and the result has always been to put back the clock. I was one of those who opposed the idea behind the 1939 Act, of lumping together British Airways and Imperial Airways. Unfortunately nobody knew how to resist the ideas of Lord Reith, and disastrously, Lord Reith knew nothing about civil aviation. The British Overseas Airways Corporation was never set up by informed opinion in the House of Commons: the House of Commons was actually presented with a fait accompli. It was the child of Treasury mandarins, backed up by the Air Marshals and the Air Ministry. In my judgment, having had some experience on this matter, the development of the British Overseas Airways Corpora-

tion has been a failure. I hope that now, as a result of these debates, there will be sufficient pressure on the Government and the Air Ministry to bring about in the future the repeal of the 1939 Act.
In these Debates we seem to get on to the higher policies of the future of civil aviation, and it is extremely difficult for the House to make up its mind about these practical questions, for the simple reason that the Government never give us sufficient information. If we had a Minister of Civil Aviation, I imagine, he might be able to spare the time to come down to the House and tell us the practical details and the advantages or the disadvantages of the flying boat as against the long-distance land planes, or to tell us something about the facts from the technical experience of flying the South Atlantic, as against that of flying the North Atlantic. We should be far better informed if they could give the House of Commons, almost in Committee, as it were, some information on all up weights and pay loads over long distances. I would like to know something about the development which has taken place in the various safety devices, particularly with regard to de-icing. I think also that there is a good deal of information which the spokesman for the Government could give us about radiolocation, and whether after the war it is proposed that it should take the place of the old beam wireless. There is far more that we could be told about the requirements for the training of the crews of the modern air liner, and about international experience with regard to minimum requirements of passenger comfort. One of the things in respect of which this House has been completely starved of technical or practical information is the organisation necessary and the results of monopoly as against the system of airline competition.
There is another question to which I will very briefly refer, because I think it is extremely important. I believe that, for a long time to come, the governing factor in civil aviation with regard to the public will be the safety factor. It is all very well for a number of my hon. Friends to come here and talk in general terms of a vision of the future and what young men want to do to develop flying, but anyone who has had the responsibility, the practical responsibility, of running air lines without Government subsidy will realise that, to the mind of the public, you must develop satisfac-


torily the safety factor. Therefore, it seems to me that, so long as the safety factor in running a civil air line is of vital importance, you cannot entirely leave the running of an air line to be subject to exclusively the profit and loss motive. If the safety factor—that is to say, requiring of all lines the maximum of safety devices—means that you cannot possibly run them on a commercial basis fulfilling these requirements unless you are subsidised by the Government, it seems to me to be obvious that such a subsidy must mean the closest Government supervision and direction of civil aviation.
I would like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for Air. Many hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, to-day referred to the three great groups after the war, and specifically referred to the British Empire as a unit rather than this island alone. We are to have discussions in the near future with the Dominion Prime Ministers. I would like to ask the Minister, if the discussions which his right hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary stated began in London, are to be continued, who is to represent the Government's view on civil aviation? Is it to be the Lord Privy Seal or the Secretary of State for Air? If we are to have, as I understand is the aim of the Government in the future, an All-Red Route of the British Empire, a route which is to run right through the Empire and which will be run by British companies and with British aeroplanes, as a minimum, is it contemplated that the British Overseas Airways Corporation will be responsible for running that route in co-operation with Australian, South African and Canadian companies, or is the right hon. Gentleman to accede to the requests made to him from time to time from various parts of the House and submit to the Dominion Prime Ministers, when they come to meet in London in a few weeks' time, a plan for setting up an Empire Air Board in London?
In a speech which was made upstairs by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), he dealt with airways in Australia and said that, in a sense, Australia before the war had to look to America to get aeroplanes. Over and over again, in the House, pleas have been made to the Government for a British Empire Air

Council or Commonwealth Board set up in London. If we are to have an All-Red Route, as envisaged by the Lord Privy Seal in a speech in another place, and if the British Commonwealth is to enter into discussions, the obvious thing to do is to set up the Board here in London now, so that it will be something which has been planned by the co-operation of all the Dominions and all the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to tell us that, at long last, the Government, at this conference of Empire Prime Ministers, are going to take the initiative. There is nothng to the detriment of the United States in this suggestion. Surely, if we have to come to negotiate with the United States on the development of civil aviation after the war, it will be very much easier if we go with a Board already set up in London to represent the British Commonwealth of Nations, instead of allowing each to go to Washington to put their separate points of view?
A great deal has been said about competition between private enterprise and State monopoly. I think the most important thing about this is the question of technical competition. In the old days, when British Airways was run as a separate company from Imperial Airways, the latter had the North Atlantic route and the Empire routes, and British Airways ran the European services with American machines, and, so long as they were separate, we could have a certain amount of technical competition between the two companies. It gave us a yardstick of efficiency, as it were. I wonder if that has disappeared after the setting up of the British Overseas Airways Corporation? I would suggest that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport suggested, there should be a European group, and I think there should also be set up, in our post-war planning, an Atlantic group. Various references have been made to the question of international control or ownership of airways. What I think is necessary is that, first, you should get the British Commonwealth of Nations to organise its post-war civil aviation as a unit, and you should then discuss upon a reasonable basis with America the allocation of various air routes. Having done that, then would be the time to set up your international authority for the consideration of the various questions referred to by the hon. Member for Swindon


(Mr. Wakefield). If civilian transport is to have any future at all; and if the right hon. Gentleman, in the terms of the appeal made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) feels that this great subject is too much for him to-day, then I beg him to tell the House, here and now, that it is the intention of the Government immediately to set up a Ministry for Civil Air Transport so that we can get on with the job.

Sir Oliver Simmonds: I have been frankly disappointed. I think that all the speeches from the Socialist benches to-day—

Mr. Bowles: There have only been two.

Sir O. Simmonds: I think there were more. Every one of those speeches has suffered from the spirit of the impracticable internationalisation, upon which the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) spoke on the Committee stage of these Estimates. I presume that the pièce-de-résistance was the speech of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague). I listened with very great care to the hon. Member, and his speech, I think, suffered from a number of inconsistencies. I elucidated these three points. He and his friends are in favour of transferring the control of civil aviation from the Air Ministry to the Ministry of Transport. He very much regrets that Members on this side of the House want to do something of the same sort, but he desires to assure us and the country, that the reasons for the change, in his mind, are vastly different from those which prompt us. He chides us when we avoid being too specific when we say that we think that civil air transport should come under the control of the Ministry of Transport. I would say to him and his friends that we are much too careful, when we commit ourselves to a policy, to agree to transfer a vastly important sphere of national and Imperial activity to a post-war Ministry, whose structure and responsibilities are at the moment wholly conjectural.
One cannot say whether, for example, shipping will remain within the Ministry of Transport. It used to be elsewhere. One cannot say to what extent the railways may pass under another aegis. Therefore, we say, if there is to be a Ministry of Communications, by all means let civil air transport be included in that

Ministry. But if the Ministry of Transport is to be a junior Ministry, such as it was before the war, controlling very little, except road signs, it would be wholly retrograde to put civil air transport under that Ministry. If that were so, I would regretfully come to the second alternative, which then I have always advanced, namely, a separate Ministry for civil air transport, but that I should regret because the Minister could not be sufficiently senior to bring before the Cabinet in the. appropriately powerful manner, any of the vital problems which will face air transport after the war. My hope is that there will be a strong comprehensive Ministry of Communications, or of some similar name which may be selected, to include all forms of transport, and possibly some other forms of communication as well.
The second point that I gathered from my hon. Friend's speech was that he was not anxious that there should be private enterprise. He was willing that there should be a State subsidy and control. That seems to be a contradiction in terms, because private enterprise has always said, "We will take the risk." Similar risks have been taken and vast sums of money have been lost when these risks have been based on wrong premises. Let there be no mistake about that. If, therefore, he is so anxious that the State should retain the control and operation of these services, which he is so sure will lose money, why should he want to relieve private enterprise, if it is willing to take its share of this loss, from so doing?

Mr. Montague: Is it?

Sir O. Simmonds: Indeed, it is. That is the proposition. I ask him to address himself seriously to this.

Mr. Montague: Will the hon. Member read the Report of the Lamplugh Committee, which he signed himself, and he will see the demand made then for Government subsidies.

Sir O. Simmonds: As the hon. Member said I happen to be one of the members of that Committee, and I know what is in that Report and there is nothing in there which is at all inconsistent with what I have said. The position with regard to the subsidy is well understood and I am prepared to discuss it at any time with the hon. Member. The third point he made


is that we were too optimistic with regard to civil air transport and that we were too progressive altogether with regard to it. On this side of the House, we are, proverbially, progressive, and my hon. Friend and his friends will find that it is true in a number of different spheres in the course of the months to come.
I am certain that it is only by a curious coincidence that I have found, over the number of years during which I have had the honour to be a Member of this House, that when a Department is feeling a little unhappy or uncertain about itself and the subject of the day's Debate has been its activities, there has been, most frequently, a leader in "The Times" that morning. I was not, therefore, very much surprised when, on opening "The Times" this morning, I found the first leader headed "Planning Air Transport." I thought it an extremely interesting leader, but also, in some respects, a somewhat confusing one. In particular, I am sorry that "The Times" has confused us still further as to "the chosen instrument," what the chosen instrument is and what it prevents other instruments of transport from doing within the same sphere. "The Times" writes:
A 'chosen instrument' does not enjoy a monopoly of flying rights. It is the sole recipient of Government subsidies, commonly in the form of favourable mail contracts.
It does not enjoy a monopoly of flying rights. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State may rake up one or two exceptions, but they will only prove the rule. But the rule has been, and inevitably will be, that Governments do not arrange, through their Foreign Offices, rights for other air lines to compete with chosen instruments of their own State upon a given route. Therefore, it is a legalistic truth that "The Times" recites. The facts are wholly different. It is also a well-known fact that, if on a given route, an unsubsidised company were allowed to fly other than as a chosen instrument and that company remained successful, there would be no justification for continuing the rights of the chosen instrument and thus ipso facto the chosen instrument would cease to fly over that route. But this problem of a chosen instrument is a very debatable one, as almost every speech has indicated. We are suffering at the moment from the paralysis of a State monopoly. I say this to the House with some not inconsiderable

knowledge of aeronautics. It is very pleasing to be able to praise British initiative and British services, and particularly British international services, but I ought to be frank, and I say that our friends overseas are dismayed at the lack of success which we are evidencing through our handling of air transport.
It really is time that the House faced this fact. The hard fact given to us by the Cadman Committee in 1939, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) pointed out, is that we are not at the moment making a success of air transport. A number of reasons have, from time to time, been adduced as to why a single State monopoly is unsuitable to air transport. One I can illuminate from the discussions to-day. There has been some mention of the Brabazon Committee. Now if civil air transport were healthy, there would have been no Brabazon Committee. When the United States want new airliners, they have the aircraft operators, each of whom knows what he wants for a given purpose and is willing to give a specification to the aircraft industry. That has been the basis on which American civil air transport has been designed from the very beginning. The famous early Douglas machines were built largely to the specification of the air line operators, and although there are a number of estimable gentlemen upon the Brabazon Committee, I must observe quite frankly that the actual experience in air transport operation represented upon the Committee, as compared with a similar committee in the United States, is almost nil. They are sound men whose judgment is admitted, and whose advice we will take, but they are not men with a background of experience in air transport which gives us any very great assurance that their guesses as to the requirements of the future are likely to be more right than anybody else's.
I hope that the Government will approach this problem anew. It is very difficult for a Government wholly to retrace their steps, and there are many in the Air Ministry and elsewhere, who are responsible for having suggested and put through the scheme for the creation of the British Overseas Airways Corporation. Therefore, I will not press for the destruction of B.O.A.C. but would suggest that it should be given a limited field more appropriate to its personnel and its


experience, so that other companies or—I would not exclude these—other State corporations, in certain circumstances, might come into the field in those other spheres. Therefore I do not want to take any too definite attitude as between private enterprise and State enterprise in regard to the air transport of the future. What I am vitally interested in is to have, as the hon. Member for Stroud said in another connection, two to try it out. Let us have State enterprise, if you want it—B.O.A.C. running a certain section of Britain's world air routes—and let private enterprise,—the shipping companies or ad hoc companies—operate other sections. Then in the course of ten years or so, I am certain that both my hon. Friends opposite and my hon. Friends around me will see the figures in a not dissimilar light.
Let us put this to the test and see from practical experience of operation which is the way to handle our great air services of the future. Therefore I would hope that we might have possibly six or seven selected areas. There could be what are now called the England-Cairo-Karachi and the England-Cairo-Cape Town areas, which possibly could be given over to B.O.A.C. because they are fairly well entrenched in that area. There would then be the North Atlantic area, which I certainly hope would not be given to B.O.A.C.; they are not the right people to develop a brisk commercial passenger traffic such as is necessary in that area. To my mind, something with the name, Cunard Air Line, would, from what I know of my American friends, attract them into the air on a British aeroplane to fly to England and to Europe, because the Americans used our ships not only to the British Isles but to Europe in the past. Then I think we should have separate lines both on the South Atlantic and on the Pacific. It is monstrous that we have allowed ourselves to be excluded there so far. Of course we are going to be with our European friends in Europe and I fancy that we should also plan some Northern-Asiatic-British links which should go through Siberia to Canada, Hong Kong, and other British possessions.
I would like to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air if he can give the House some definite information on this point. We all know that the Lord

Privy Seal made a recent statement welcoming the shipping companies and stating that they are quite free to come into the air transport field. But, as I have indicated—and the House was with me on this when I analysed the legalistic statement as to the meaning of "chosen instrument" in "The Times"—it is not good enough just to say they can fly. Of course they can fly if they have a certificate of air worthiness, but can they fly for hire and reward? Will the Foreign Office back them in getting the necessary permits from the foreign States at the other end? That is what the Lord Privy Seal omitted to say, and I press my right hon. Friend to tell the House very frankly to-day what is the Government attitude on this point. Have the Government yet made up their minds? It is just not good enough to play about with trade and industry in this way. Let me say here that I have no shipping interests, not remotely, but I think the shipping industry can serve us well as regards air transport, and I think the time has passed when they should be fooled with this ambiguity. I ask for a straightforward answer to what I hope has been a straightforward question.
With regard to the Empire, the cogent and very witty speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) has greatly advanced one's understanding of this problem and will do much more than the numerical strength of his party at the present moment. The essence for the Empire is unity, and if we have attained some degree of unity through the recent discussions under the chairmanship of the Lord Privy Seal, then we are in his debt, but I must ask the Government to watch this carefully. Unity is not something which will remain constant unless it is tended with care, and if we are to hold the Empire together with us on this subject, we have to keep them in closest touch with all our intentions and endeavours.
Now a few words on the vexed question of international organisation and control. It is manifest that we shall have some form of international control. In its limited form it will be control of airworthiness conditions and size of air ports while in its major form it could be even control and ownership of air liners themselves. What I feel on this subject is that we do not want to commit ourselves


indefinitely. Any agreement the Government make should be for a period not exceeding five years. During that time the world will be settling down and we can then arrive at final conclusions as a result of that control period. American air lines have invited the rest of the world, and the British Empire in particular, to join with them in "free and open competition." If I had all the trumps in my hand that is exactly the sort of thing I might be prompted to do. But that is not a very useful suggestion. It leaves out, for instance the Royal Netherlands Air Service, which has virtually no machines and no managerial personnel, at any rate together in one place. How can Holland compete in free and open competition with the United States of America, bloated as they are with air transport machines, crews and other facilities for the successful operation of air lines? No, this is not quite the hour for free and open competition, although I sincerely hope that in due course we will come to that. What I think we can have immediately is a multilateral understanding between the United Nations and those other neutral States which we wish to welcome into this understanding.
When one comes to analyse carefully the possibilities of this multilateral agreement, I must say, as one who is opposed to it and as one who believes in private enterprise, that for the moment I think the safest course for the world to adopt would be to agree to have a quota for this five years on the world air routes for each nation. Until a few months ago, it might have been said that it was almost impossible to get agreement in a friendly way on such a subject, but I would remind hon. Members of the decisions and great agreement reached on the spot by U.N.R.R.A., where it was not only not a question of the possibility of making profits, but of States putting their hands into their pockets for many millions of pounds sterling for rehabilitation work. That prompts us to believe that there is more common sense among the United Nations' statesmen than was apt to be thought at one period. I believe that there are men in the United Nations who could work out what would be an agreeable quota system for civil air transport on the international routes throughout the world. Within this Scheme the relationship of the British Empire and the United States should be one of parity. I have

spoken to many of my American friends, both inside and outside the administration in Washington, on this subject, and they do not think it unreasonable that the British Empire and America should have parity in this quota system, that parity to be measured by some mutually acceptable yardstick.
At a very interesting conference I had in New York with a number of interested people I was asked to discuss whether in fact such a system would be flexible. I claimed that it would be. Assuming, for example, that the yardstick was taken as ton mile capacity, if a nation had more quota than it needed on a given route, it could ask the international authority to permit it to transfer that surplus quota to some other route where there was more traffic than quota capacity available. That would give flexibility which would be justifiable in all circumstances. If we do not have international control and a quota system, I believe we shall be forced back on two other alternatives. One is the old system of bi-lateral agreement. Do not let us delude ourselves by thinking that because the President and Prime Minister have agreed tentatively to freedom of air passage and freedom of air facilities, that the problem is solved, because as my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport indicated, there is the problem of air trade. Are you going to allow air lines to embark and disembark passengers, mails and goods at certain spots in foreign territory? In exactly the same way as we were held to ransom by Persia over the problem of freedom of air passage so we can be held to ransom in the matter of air trade.
I can conceive that the most dangerous international situation might occur if a rich State, by economic or other pressure, made arrangements to purchase or obtain in some way preferential rights in air trade in a certain smaller State so that other nations would be precluded from embarking or disembarking passengers. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport said, "You have not yet tackled the problem if you have not tackled the question of freedom of air trade." It is as vital as the problem of fiscal protection. It gives rise to exactly the same nationalistic feelings in the breasts of manufacturers and traders, and those feelings are quite well developed in some breasts throughout the world to-


day. Until we see what freedom there is to be for air trade let us not give away the right to use the vital bases in the British Empire which as my right hon. Friend said are such an important asset to us.
The other alternative is the one suggested by my hon. Friends opposite, international ownership. I put it to them in all sincerity, and without making any debating point of it, that though this may line up with their whole political philosophy, it is quite impracticable during the next decade. I am ready to have a Debate for the sake of debate at any time with any of my hon. Friends opposite, but we ought not to mislead the country as to the possibility. They must know, in their heart of hearts, from what has been said by the spokesmen of foreign Governments, particularly those of the United States of America, that for the next decade at any rate—I do not ask them to go further—international ownership of international air lines is wholly impossible. If they do not see that, then I can only pray that light may come ere long. If they will face the facts, and see what is the best proposition they can get that will fit into their political philosophy, then they will be doing greater service in this vital discussion than they will by insisting on something which now has become wholly impracticable and wholly academic.
I end by saying this. Let us not be disturbed by those who cry on the one side of the Atlantic, "As Britain intends to have a State corporation therefore we must," or by those who cry on this side, "America intends to have a single chosen instrument and therefore we must." I am very doubtful whether there is much sincerity behind these statements. The issue is clearly before us. America intends to maintain private enterprise, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air will be very frank with us and tell us what is the position of the Corporation, whether the Government are prepared to localise its activities, but in that locality to support it with all their power, and in other areas allow private enterprise to operate the British air plan.

Mr. Montague: May I ask the hon. Member whether I understand him to say that the North Atlantic route should be left to the operation of the shipping com-

parties? If so, for whom then is he speaking?

Sir O. Simmonds: I am speaking for myself entirely, as I have spoken throughout.

Mr. Bowles: Ten speeches have been made so far to-day in this Debate, but leaving out that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port (Mr. Hore-Belisha) only two have been made from these benches. We have wondered why the Members who have taken the trouble to put this Amendment on the Order Paper, and to speak to-day, did not say their piece during the Debate on civil aviation a fortnight ago. I suppose there is only one explanation, and it is that they realised that the Minister would make a long speech in introducing the Air Estimates; that that would fill a good deal of the Press and take up a good deal of time on the wireless; that there would be a Debate on it, and that following the Debate on civil aviation on an Amendment which I had the honour to move, their case might be pushed well into the background. So, quite naturally, they hung back until to-day—

Mr. Tree: We have made it quite clear why we did not enter into the Debate of a fortnight ago. That Debate dealt exclusively with internationalisation. There were many other matters which we wanted to debate but which would then have been out of Order.

Major C. S. Taylor: I was interrupted three or four times when I spoke a fortnight ago on the hon. Member's Amendment because the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) himself said that I was not keeping to the strict terms of his Amendment.

Mr. Bowles: I did not say that no Members spoke at all but that hon. Members opposite felt that they ought to have a day to themselves. They felt that the international case which my friends and I put across a fortnight ago would go out to the country and other parts of the world as the view of the House of Commons. Frankly, they were right, because I have received many letters from people who have told me to carry on with this international idea, as it is the only one which will give us any kind of hope for the future of world peace. One of the letters I received was from a lady who ended by saying:


I am a young war widow. My husband gave his life in the R.A.F. and I earnestly desire to see a better world in the future. The fact that my widow's pension is taxed makes me determined to do what I can to change the present system and it is only by appealing to men like yourself, who work for the common good"—
I do not know who she is; I do not even know her address.

Mr. Bartle Bull: She cannot know much about the hon. Member either.

Mr. Bowles: I want hon. Members opposite to hear what this lady says. She goes on:
I was glad to read of your proposals in connection with future airways. I am not a member of your constituency. I have the misfortune to be represented by a Tory M.P., which means, of course, that my interests are not represented at all. Go ahead on this airways question. It will make a great deal of difference to the little man.
The lady then goes on to explain where the Tories get their support from, but I will not go into that now. To the case which my hon. Friends and I put across a fortnight ago—and which I do not intend to repeat to-day for it is all on record and well worth reading again and again—not a single speech has shown that it was not completely watertight. In fact, the whole Debate to-day has shown how the various interests are beginning to get going so far as the scramble for the future of civil aviation is concerned. In "The Times" yesterday a man calling himself "William Baird" was putting in a plea for the shipping companies. The hon. Member for Duddeston (Sir O. Simmonds) also put in two pleas for the shipping interests to-day, one as a whole and the other for a particular shipping concern. I cannot understand how it can be suggested that because a company can run a liner from Liverpool to Sydney, feed the passengers and cater for their comfort for something like six weeks, they have any qualification or experience for feeding people on a seven hour trip. It would be much more sensible, I suggest, to let Thomas Cook and Sons do it. They have had great variety of experience in catering for all kinds of passengers in all parts of the world.

Mr. Bull: If my hon. Friend would travel around the world he would be unable to find out which is the worse, Thomas Cook and Sons or the American Express.

Mr. Bowles: I have travelled a good deal about the world though I have not

stayed anywhere as long as my hon. Friend, but what we are concerned about is this, and it really is a very serious situation. I listened with very great respect to the hon. and gallant Member for Watford (Air Commodore Helmore). He said and this was the most menacing part of the speech that we ought to call together all the nations of the world, to discuss this question of world airways. He said the first item on the agenda should be the preparation for the next war.

Mr. Wakefield: The hon. and gallant Member said he did not want another war and went on to say his suggestion was to avoid war.

Mr. Bowles: It is recognised by a large number of people in this country that this question of the future organisation of civil aviation is a testing question of any form of international law and order after the war. I emphasised in my speech a fortnight ago, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) did so to-day, that the important thing in civil aviation in the future is the danger of international rivalries and what may spring from them. Therefore we say, and I think I am speaking on behalf of the whole of my party in this matter, that we do not believe in internationalisation of civil air traffic just because it fits in with the rest of our policy, but because we have seen enough of these scrambles between businesses and nations which result every 20 years in war. We know why there is this world war. It is because of the continuance of the system which hon. Members opposite support and that they are here to continue to support. I personally regard hon. Members opposite as a real menace to world peace, as they have always been. It apparently escapes the notice of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the first consideration should be service to the user and not the financial interests of the people who are to run the service. The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) made a very good speech, but he took the same line, that this should be left to private enterprise but subsidised by the State.

Mr. Wakefield: I never said that. I never suggested there should be subsidies.

Mr. Bowles: I think the word was surcharge.

Mr. Wakefield: No.

Mr. Bowles: It amounts to the same thing. If the hon. Gentleman did not say so, does that indicate he is not in favour of subsidies?

Mr. Wakefield: I said private enterprise was the best way to provide a service, and also that private competitive service ought to be able to run without State subsidies.

Mr. Bowles: It is obvious that like his friends the hon. Member believes in private enterprise but if it is likely to go under, it must call on the State to save it from sinking. We see no reason why the taxpayers should subsidise private enterprises that are in such a risky state that they are likely to sink. It is reinforced private enterprise without the entrepeneurs taking risks they used to pride themselves on taking in the days that are dead. They want subsidies, but unlimited profits of course. They want profits secured and any surplus to go to them or to other residuary legatees of the business. In "The Times" this morning the leader-writer referred to four matters which seemed to me to assist my case. There is talk about a survey of the facts, which indicates what groups will be the chosen instruments. Behind these suspicions there is fear of the use of civil aircraft for espionage. A third is the probable conversion of aircraft into bombers and, fourthly, a clear line should be drawn between the organisation of great trans-Continental lines and the regime which will control air transport in Europe. It seems to me that all these four difficulties and dangers which "The Times" leader riter sees ahead will be got rid of if the policy that we are adumbrating is adopted, namely full internationalisation of control and ownership. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the President of the United States had plumped for private enterprise as one of the hard facts that we have to face. The right hon. Gentleman plumped for it as well, so that is two hard facts. I suppose other Members, to make my case more difficult, will plump against it, but that does not alter its correctness or its desirability at all.
I am certain that all this plumping for private enterprise does not really represent the views of the people, the common man or woman in the street, as indicated in the letter that I quoted from, and many other letters that I have received in the last fortnight. All that hon. Members

opposite are concerned with is to maintain, if they possibly can, the continuance of the private enterprise system. Quite naturally. I am not surprised. I am not surprised at anything any hon. Member opposite has said to-day. Every bit of it was expected. We have had the usual repetitions. "Let us come down from the clouds"—"Come down to earth" "Come down to reality." The hon. Member for Duddeston (Sir O. Simmonds) seemed to think it might be practicable in about 10 years' time. I think it may be practicable now.

Sir O. Simmonds: I said I hoped that in 10 years possibly some hon. Members opposite would have cooled off.

Mr. Bowles: The hon. Gentleman knows that the case we have been putting across has got across to the country. That is the thing they want us to cool down upon, but we have no reason to cool down. In fact, we are getting more and more heated about it. The hon. Gentleman uttered some interesting remarks, some of which were new to me. He would not mind going into competition if there was no chance of being beaten. He is not surprised at the Americans inviting world competition, because the Americans have all the trump cards in their hands. Surely there is some sporting aspect of this question. Competitors ought to be sufficiently sporting to go down if they do not win the competition, but that seems to be anathema to hon. Members opposite. They like to have it both ways. They think they can go up, but the State must see to it that they do not go down. Even between nations he is prepared to have competition if it is certain that he is going to win. He knows that he is not going to win as far as the United States are concerned. I feel that there are ways and means of appealing over the heads of Governments to the people, and I make the suggestion for presentation to Presidential candidates for the next election that this might be one of the planks in their platform if they want to get in. They will probably both adopt it. I beg hon. Members opposite to realise that this is a testing question.
The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) referred to the Debate as being in the nature of a breach of the political truce. One political party puts forward its point of view and the other its. It is quite natural. That is why we had a


good Debate a fortnight ago and a rather one-sided one to-day. This is the recognised and adopted policy of the second largest party in the House. You must not just put it aside in one or two sentences. I want to hear from the right hon. Gentleman—I have not heard it from any one who sits behind him—any argument against this case for full international control and ownership. I do not mind waiting all night for the Minister to answer all the small administrative queries put to him by his loyal supporters. We expect much more of an answer than we got from the Parliamentary Secretary a fortnight ago. If no answer is given, there is no answer to our case.

Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: I think I find myself in the rear turret in this Debate. That being a very dangerous place, I intend to drop my small 250 lb. bomb and be gone. I find myself in entire agreement with my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. I thoroughly appreciated everything that fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. HoreBelisha). I shall read his speech very carefully, as will the rest of the world who are interested in it. One salient point comes out of the Debate. I think we are all united in saying that civil aviation must come away from the Air Ministry. My right hon. Friend is in a very great difficulty over this because, quite clearly, the Government have not made up their mind whether civil aviation is to be run as an economic factor or whether it is to be part of the defence of the country after the war. Until we know for certain which it is to be we cannot be certain whether it would be right for it to be a separate Ministry or whether it should be under the Air Ministry. Obviously, if it is to be run as an economic concern, it must come away from there. But I ask my right hon. Friend to try to get a decision about this as quickly as possible. We must get on with this, we are losing time terribly. It is very difficult to stoke up enthusiasm for what is going to be a most important thing for the preservation of the peace afterwards. Look at the House. It is not a quarter full. If it were really a matter which the Government had pushed forward as a matter of urgency, it would be full. I beg the Government to apprise the country of the importance of civil aviation and to get on with it.

Mr. Petherick: As my hon. and gallant Friend has just said, all parties in the House are practically united on one main theme. That is that civil aviation must be removed from the Air Ministry. When I say "all parties," there is one party that does not seem to be in agreement with the general thesis. That is the Government. I have noticed once or twice before on certain occasions that the Government, oddly enough, seem to form a party themselves and the rest of the divergent interests and parties in the House of Commons unite in denouncing the Government's policy. It seems to me that my right hon. Friend, when he comes to reply, will have a difficult case to answer. Here we are almost demanding the same thing, although perhaps for different reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) rather suggested that that which he was advocating and which others opposite have joined in' advocating cannot really be quite nice because we on this side are in it too. It reminds one of "The Hunting of the Snark":
Each thought he was thinking of nothing but snark
And the glorious work of the day,
And each tried to pretend that he didn't remark
That the other was going that way.
My right hon. Friend will, I think, find that the House will not consider it sufficient if he merely gives the reason why civil aviation should stay within the control of his Department. He must answer the strong case which has been put on the other side by many hon. Members. I would ask him particularly to pay attention to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield). He pointed out that, after all, the Admiralty does not have control of merchant shipping in peace time and that the War Office does not have control of horse transport or the lorries on the roads or the railways. Therefore, why on earth should the Air Ministry have control of this new, rapidly growing and virile form of locomotion? I suppose that the original reason why the Air Ministry took it over was that it was a very young baby and the Government were looking for some kind of crêche or institution to put it into, and the Air Ministry said, "We know all about this kind of baby and we will accept it." This often happens in different branches of public administration. Some


Ministry either takes over a certain sphere of operation or it invents something new, and however great may be the arguments against its retention of it, there is an almost solemn wedge which says, "There it is, we must find some reason for keeping it and if we cannot we will keep it anyhow." That is roughly the position of civil aviation to-day. I hope that my right hon. Friend will—I do not think he can satisfy the House—at least make a stronger case to show that there is something in the contention that civil aviation should remain with the Air Ministry than that which has been made.
The question of the internationalisation of air communications after the war has been brought up again. I do not think it is desirable. Whether it is desirable or not, hon. Members opposite who are in favour of that particular method of dealing with air communications will not get it. They are just baying for the moon. They have only to ask America if they will agree and they will see why. Therefore it seems to me a sheer waste of time in this House or anywhere else to advocate the internationalisation of air transport. Even if they did get it, which they will not, it would not be desirable. The idea is, broadly speaking, that if the whole system is internationalised the lion will lie down with the lamb, the vulture with the bear, and so on. But is it not much more likely to lead to international rivalry? We shall see each country striving to get more control and more shares in the international company. There will be bickering, fighting and bad blood, and the last state will be worse than the first.
The question of nationalisation has also been raised to-day. My hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Sir O. Simmonds), being a good Tory, takes a sensible and objective view. He said that he would not shut out the idea of having a State-owned company or companies. Nor would he ignore the idea of having, for instance, a shipping company—he mentioned the Cunard—owning and operating an air line across the Atlantic. That is a probable project. We on this side of the House are not doctrinaires. We look upon all these matters as purely business questions. We do not object to experimenting if necessary. It is conceivable, although it is

extremely unlikely, that there might be a British air line run by the State with a monopoly of the service to Africa, and another British air line run by private individual enterprise operating to the West Indian islands, and it is conceivable that the State-run line would do it better. I do not believe it would, but we do not object to trying. Hon. Members who take up the extreme Socialist view shut out all the merits of private enterprise, and say that only one thing is possible, that the only way in which to run an undertaking efficiently is to run it by the State. We try to look upon these matters far more as reasonable beings and try to arrive at a reasonable solution.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) once again made a strong plea for Empire action with regard to post-war civil aviation. We have heard much of the all-red route. I should like an all-red route linking up all the different parts of the British Empire. Whether it is run by the chosen instrument, which would no doubt be described as an "all-pink route," or run by a series of State companies or by private enterprise will be for the future to decide. After the war, however, we shall be in a difficult position with regard to civil aviation. We shall have, it is true, a large number of highly trained pilots. We shall have, I hope, all over the Empire a large number of fairly efficient aerodromes designed for different purposes, namely, military aviation. We shall have practically no transport aerodromes and virtually no commercial aeroplanes to carry tourists. These will be owned by different countries. Therefore, our position will not be too easy because our factories will also be designed for the construction of military aircraft. We have one strong card to play. That is the fact that we have an Empire which contains an immense number of strategic points from the point of view of civil aviation all over the world. If we found that we were being done out of our rightful place in civil aviation, it would be open to us by agreement with the Empire—I hope everything will be done by Imperial agreement—to say that we will reserve inter-Imperial traffic for our own Imperial British subjects whether it be run by the State or by private enterprise or by the chosen instrument. We are willing to negotiate with any foreign country for traffic in between parts of the British


Empire and other countries, which do not belong to it. That is a very strong point in its favour. I do not say that we should exaggerate our desires but I only want to maintain that to which we are entitled.
After all, we are a great world Empire, and the future of the Empire will depend—although I am one of those old-fashioned people who rather regret it—to a large extent on the development of our inter-Empire aviation. We must lose no opportunity of developing it, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us some assurance that, if the Air Ministry cannot hand over civil aviation to another Department—some communications department would seem to be the best—he will give the House an assurance that he will re-examine the whole question with an open mind, in view of the very strong representations that have been made from all quarters of the House.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has just sat down, because he has made it clear that the House ought not to expect me to give them satisfaction. So little is expected of me that I will try to give hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate at any rate the measure of satisfaction of assuring them that I, and the Government for whom I speak, take seriously the contributions that they have made to the consideration of this important question. When I was told some two or three weeks ago that hon. Members wished to have this Debate I suggested to those who approached me that it might be a good thing to leave a rather longer interval between the previous Debate and the present one At any rate, I made it clear that I should not be able to give definite answers on two points which hon. Members wished to take this opportunity of ventilating, the future of the public Corporation and the future administration of civil aviation.
That being understood, I must say that this Debate has been most useful. The House has not met to hear and criticise a considered statement of Government policy, but to make its views known in advance, and so to influence the formulation of policy. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) said that there was a fundamental difference dividing the Members in this Debate, the difference between

the old, who want to suppress flying, and the new, who believe in it and believe that it will bring untold blessings. The first party has been remarkably silent in this Debate, for all those who participated in it believe firmly in the future of civil aviation and in the great service which it can render to the Commonwealth and Empire. The different opinions which have been expressed will certainly be taken into careful account when our own policy on these subjects is framed. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) tried to draw me into a much wider field than I can possibly attempt to cover to-day. He asked me whether some of these subjects would be discussed at the Conference of Dominion Prime Ministers, but of course I cannot answer about the agenda of the Dominion Prime Ministers, and the hon. Gentleman must address himself to the Secretary of State for the Dominions or the Prime Minister on that subject.
Before I come to the principal subjects on which opposite opinions have been expressed to-day, there is one thing I should like to make clear at the outset. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) made a particularly interesting speech on behalf of the Labour Party. He made it clear that the Labour Party is favourable to three lines of policy: in the first place it advocates international co-gperation and the maintenance of the public corporation policy; secondly, the Labour Party wants the Ministry of Transport to administer civil aviation; and thirdly he said that before making any change as to the future administration of civil aviation, it was necessary to decide whether to alter or maintain the policy of the public corporation. These are subjects with which I shall be dealing presently; but the hon. Member went on to say something about which I feel I must make clear my own position and the position of the Government. He went on rather to deprecate too much being made of civil aviation and to suggest that it would be a matter for well-to-do tourists, business men and ambassadors. It sounded paradoxical in a way to me, because I know how keenly interested he is in the subject of civil aviation and how much he did in earlier years to further its interests. I had the honour at one time of serving on a committee under his chairmanship when he was Under-Secretary of State for Air, and at first it seemed to me inconsistent with all I know about his interest in civil


aviation that he should take this rather depreciating line. I think I know what is in his mind about it. He realises that in the earlier years, at any rate, it cannot be a large enterprise, and he is afraid that exaggerated estimates of the employment which will be immediately available in our aircraft industries after the war, will hold out expectations to people who have been working so hard during the war which will be disappointed. He does not wish to have the responsibility of giving pilots and workers the idea that there will be ample scope for all those who wish for employment after the war in civil air transport.

Mr. Montague: Also, if I may say so, I deprecate entirely exaggerated statements made to bolster up a particular political policy with regard to civil aviation. I wanted to "debunk" a good deal, but I am not in the slightest degree desirous of depreciating aviation as such.

Sir A. Sinclair: That is another reason, perhaps, but the hon. Member did go on to say he thought that with holidays with pay and the workers' recreational associations to help, there would be a possibility of enlarging the custom for civil air transport after the war. I want to make it abundantly plain that I dissociate myself and the Government from the view that civil air transport is an unimportant subject, that it is remote from the people, that it will never be more than an insignificant part of our carrying trade, and that it can be regarded as a mere ancillary of the railways and shipping. We must see that it is not developed merely as a luxury for the rich and the captains of industry. Its beginnings had to be small, but it will create new forms of traffic as it grows, and its growth will be relatively swift. Just as I have always fought the idea that the Air Force should be split up and developed as ancillary to the Army and Navy, so I believe it would be shortsighted to allow the growth of civil aviation to be subordinated to the interests of older forms of transport. That consideration was obviously very much in the minds of my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Mr. Tree), for Stroud and for Eye, because they argued for a separate Ministry of Civil Aviation.
The hon. Member for Eye used an argument in which I did not think there is much substance, that technical questions

could be explained by the Minister to Members of Parliament, for example, the controversy about flying boats versus land planes, and beam wireless and matters of that kind. I do not think that those are really appropriate subjects for Ministers to come to explain to Members. If there are Members who wish to know about these subjects, I could readily arrange for the information to be made available to them. But use was made of the argument that it was cruelty to the overworked and overburdened Minister to leave him with these responsibilities for civil aviation, and that there ought to be a separate Ministry. It was suggested that the necessity for that was proved by the handing over to the Lord Privy Seal and the Civil Air Transport Committee of the Cabinet of all the responsibility for the future planning of civil air transport. But in fact the formulation of the plans for international civil air transport has been done in my Department. There are, of course, a great many other Departments concerned. There are the Colonial Office, which is interested in the development of feeder services in the Empire, the India Office, the Dominions Office and the Foreign Office, because, of course, the commercial future of air transport cannot be dissociated from the whole of our foreign and economic policy after the war. The co-ordination of these departmental activities has been undertaken with immense energy by the Lord Privy Seal. His leadership of our united efforts has been invaluable, but, again I say, that the formulation of the plans and the documentation supplied to the Civil Air Transport Committee has been supplied by the Civil Aviation Department of the Air Ministry.
Many of the arguments used by these hon. Members were cogent. I am far from rejecting them out of hand. They will have to be carefully examined. Clearly, however, the establishment of a separate Ministry for Civil Air Transport cannot be considered, as my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Sir O. Simmonds) pointed out, apart from the whole of the problem of the machinery of Government. Should the Minister in charge be a Member of the Cabinet? I am sure that all those who advocate this departure in policy will answer that question with an unhesitating "Yes." For if not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston


feared, his influence would be small. But if it is the proposal that he should be a member of the Cabinet, the next question is, Can he be accommodated in a Cabinet of reasonable size? What other claimants will there be to seats at the Cabinet table in the post-war Government? Where, too, will the responsibility for air research and development lie? My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) suggested that there should be a special research department for civil aviation. But the cost of modem research and development is immense, and there will have to be a great pooling if we are to have efficiency in our research and value for the very large sums of money which I hope we intend, after this war, to spend on research, because research is going to be vital for aviation on both the Service and the civil sides. If there is to be value for that expenditure, there will have to be a great concentration and pooling of research. It is in the light of the answer to these and similar questions that any decision to establish a separate Ministry of Air Transport will have to be reached.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: That will not apply to the Ministry of Transport.

Sir A. Sinclair: I was speaking of a separate Ministry. What I was arguing at that stage was that if you were considering the establishment of a separate Ministry for civil aviation, you must consider it in relation to the whole problem of the machinery of government.
Several hon. Members have urged that civil aviation should pass to the Ministry of Transport. The risk that the development of civil aviation would, in that event, be controlled and directed into those channels least hurtful to the older forms of transport is not one to be ignored. Obviously, it is not one, either, to be regarded as entirely conclusive in itself, and it has to be weighed against the advantages which have been urged. It would, for example, avoid what my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) suggested was a duality of loyalty in the present situation (though I would rather, for his phrase "duality of loyalty," suggest the phrase "common allegiance"). He suggested that if only so much money is available for aviation either the Service side or the civil side is bound to suffer. That is perfectly true under the present

system, but it is bound to be true under any other system, too. You do not increase the amount of money available for development merely by moving civil aviation into a separate Ministry.

Sir O. Simmonds: Surely my right hon. Friend, with all his experience, is not going to suggest that two Ministries fighting the Treasury are not going to get more money than one?

Sir A. Sinclair: I do most decidedly suggest that. I say that Chancellors of the Exchequer, having a double dose of original sin, are not above playing off one Ministry against the other.
I agree that the case for the administration of Civil Air Transport by a Ministry of Communications would be strengthened if we were to depart from the public corporation principle. It is true that at present there is no statutory bar to the operation of unsubsidised services by other interests, but I am afraid that only the most lucrative routes would be attractive to those other interests, and I cannot help doubting whether Parliament would approve of a policy which left the most profitable routes to private enterprise, and left the State to shoulder the burden of the unprofitable. Moreover, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston that Governments are hardly likely to seek from foreign countries—he asked me to answer frankly, and I tell him frankly that I agree with him—facilities for private undertakings to compete against a public corporation, to deprive it of profitable traffic, to leave it, to use my hon. Friend's own illustration, with the Cairo to Karachi route and to take from it the New York to London route, thereby increasing the burden on the taxpayer of maintaining the public corporation, which would be indispensable for national, Imperial, Colonial, commercial and defence purposes.
If, however, Parliament so decided, or if Parliament decided to go even further in entrusting the development of civil air transport to private enterprise, there would be much more to be said than otherwise there would be for transferring its administration from a Department with a wealth of practical experience of air operation, like the Air Ministry, to a Department like the Ministry of Transport, which is concerned with the regulation of private enterprise. Then civil aviation would be handled by the same


Department as handled other forms of transport. The air-line operator would be in the same relation to the Ministry as the shipping, railway or road haulage company.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) said that, with every year that passes, unsubsidised air operation is becoming more possible. We are, I am afraid, some way from the possibility of unsubsidised operation of air transport on any except, at any rate, the most lucrative routes, and a long way yet so far as the great trans-Asian, trans-African and trans-ocean routes are concerned. He suggested that the all-British chain should be operated by the British Overseas Airways Corporation (he said that his reflections had matured to the acceptance of that policy since our Debates last year) but that there should be scope elsewhere for competition. But if the British Overseas Airways Corporation remains the single chosen instrument, I have no doubt whatever that there will be, on the great world air routes on this now very shrunken globe, an ample measure of competition, and the problem would be not so much to inflame competition as to exert wise control over it. It will only tend to make all that more difficult, I am afraid, if we depart from the principle which has been adopted by other countries, including all the great Dominions, of Government-owned or Government-controlled monopolies, and throw these services open to private enterprise.

Sir A. Beit: When my right hon. Friend said that he thought I was rather over-optimistic and that we were a long way from making these services pay, was he taking into account my suggestion that these services would in all probability enjoy air-mail contracts?

Sir A. Sinclair: If my hon. Friend means air-mail contracts on ordinary business terms, I think we are still a long way from making these services pay, but if he means that there would be a concealed subsidy in the contract, that would make a difference.

Mr. Tree: Does my right hon. Friend consider a surcharge on the mails a hidden subsidy?

Sir A. Sinclair: Any addition to commercial rates is a subsidy. It may be

quite in order to charge a surcharge rate for great speed, for some special advantage; but I am drawing a distinction between the commercial rate and the rate which holds a concealed subsidy.

Sir O. Simmonds: In the light of what my right hon. Friend has now said, are we to understand that the statement of the Lord Privy Seal that we should invite the shipping companies and others to come in, and that they were free to do so, was purely academic, and that it had no real basis in policy?

Sir A. Sinclair: Certainly not. But the House will recall the announcement made on behalf of the Government by the Minister without Portfolio. We have said that we cannot decide on our national setup until the international organisation of civil air transport has been settled. We have made it abundantly clear that there is no immediate intention of obtaining facilities for shipping companies to work on international routes. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eye, I would say that the changes which have been announced by the British Overseas Airways Corporation to-day are a matter of internal management, which call for no comment or confirmation by me. Meanwhile, we cannot ask for additional facilities in foreign countries nor are foreign countries asking for these additional facilities from us for international civil air transport in advance of the international discussions which are pending. The hon. Member for Harborough urged faster progress with these discussions. He told us—and I was very glad to hear it from him, because I know how well he knows the United States and how recently he has been there—that he was very hopeful of an agreement, but urged that we should hold the conference soon. He said that tolerance and goodwill, and a realisation on both sides that neither side may get 100 per cent. of what they wanted, should ensure success. I agree with him, and, as the Lord Privy Seal said in another place a month ago, we are ready for these international discussions. We have reached a broad measure of agreement with the Dominions. We have our proposals to make and I hope it will not be long—and I am not saying that lightly—before these discussions start.
The right hon. Member for Devonport raised a series of very interesting ques-


tions, which will certainly form an important part of the agenda of these discussions which we shall presently be holding with other countries. It is impossible for me to give a definite answer to these questions. They are among the subjects on which we are about to enter into confidential discussions with these other Governments. But I think everyone would agree with him that a nation must have control of its own domestic airways and that there should be a right of innocent passage. Of course, the sovereignty of the air would remain with the country over which the air was, but the country would have consented, by international agreement, to the limitation of its sovereignty in concert with those who joined in signing the agreement.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is trenching on something now which is of supreme, vital importance. I want to ask him, Is it the declared view of His Majesty's Government that the sovereignty of the air above the ground of States must remain within those States, as a declaration of post-war policy?

Sir A. Sinclair: Not as a declaration of post-war policy. I say that some change would be effected where we joined with the Governments of other countries in signing an international convention under which we agreed with those nations to limit our national sovereignty by an agreement which would be binding on all.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: In other words, national sovereignty will remain and the agreement would be recognised as mere derogation by agreement from it, but the doctrine of national sovereignty is accepted as the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Sir A. Sinclair: It would certainly remain until it was removed, but, as I said at the beginning, I am not prepared to say what the policy of the Government is, as these are all matters on which we shall have confidential discussions with other countries.

Mr. Woodburn: I can understand that countries like Russia and America may say "Over our territory we run the law as regards international aircraft," but, if we take the African Colonies and great stretches of the world, where it would be quite impossible for every country to be

able to have aerodromes, is it not possible to have international aerodromes under the control of all the nations, with extraterritorial rights, where there would be free passage for all aircraft?

Sir A. Sinclair: All these matters are subjects for discussion and will be discussed by the conference into which we are entering with other nations, but unless there is agreement, certainly air sovereignty for us in our home territory and the Colonial Empire will remain unimpaired. So with the question of picking up and dropping passengers. All these matters will be discussed at this international conference, and I say, too, that we shall certainly enter the conference as an Empire—the Mother Country and the Colonial territories.
Now, I have listened to a good deal of criticism of my Ministry. I welcome it and hope to profit by it. Some hon. Members said "Send civil aviation to the Ministry of Transport," some said "Send it to a separate Ministry." The hon. Member for Stroud said "Never mind which, but do one or the other; something must be done." Lord Melbourne used to say, when somebody told him that something must be done, "I always think it means something silly." As responsibility for civil air transport rests, and must, for the duration of the war, rest, with me, there is no loss of time in the Government taking their time to consider this matter carefully, and, as I have said, they will certainly, in considering it, take into account the opinions of hon. Members expressed here to-day. In these circumstances, I am sure hon. Members will bear with me while I give them some account of my stewardship, and commend the admirable work of the Civil Aviation Department to the impartial judgment of the House.
The hon. and gallant Member for Stroud spoke of 20 years of neglect between the wars. Those were not 20 years of neglect by the Civil Aviation Department of the Air Ministry, but 20 years of neglect by successive Governments, who were responsible for the failure to nurture, and give rises to the expansion of, British civil air transport. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport paid a generous tribute to British aircraft industry achievements in developing air transport during the reign of King George V in


the great trans-African pioneering, and development, and in the trans-Atlantic development. As he said, we are pioneers, and he paid a well-deserved tribute to the pilots and crews who, for example, have maintained now for successive winters this service across the North Atlantic ocean. I join, too, with him in paying that tribute to the pilots and crews, but we must also pay our tribute to those who have planned these services. It is not fair to leave them out. The Air Ministry was, at the outbreak of the war, making itself not only an office of air war, but a Ministry of Air administering three separate services—the Royal Air Force, civil aviation and the Meteorological Office. The Air Council is responsible only for the Royal Air Force. The affairs of civil aviation are not discussed in the Air Council. Except for war requirements the Civil Aviation Department is entirely independent of the Air Staff and air marshals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked, "Is maintenance 100 per cent.?; are all necessary stores available?" I wish I could answer him, "Yes," but that would not be true—nor would it be true, I am afraid, of the Royal Air Force. But we do our best, and the fact that civil aviation is able to share in the pool of resources and supplies of the Royal Air Force is of great advantage to it. The pooling of knowledge, experience, resources, radio, airfields, meteorological service, facilities, basic research and development is of immense advantage both to the Service and to the civil sides, and the reconciliation of differences and co-operation in the expansion of air transport are much facilitated by a common allegiance to a single Minister. The Civil Aviation Department, which owes so much to the devoted work and leadership of the Director-General, Mr. Hildred, does the day-to-day administration and makes plans for the future. The two are inextricable, for day-to-day decisions must be influenced by an intelligent understanding of future requirements. Similarly, future planning would not be well done by theorists planning in vacuo. It has done its work well, and as the House knows, we have been first in the field with our plans for the international organisation of air transport.
May I mention some of the other things, apart from those which I have already mentioned, upon which we have been engaged. Take airfields, for example. We have looked as far into the future as possible and considered the length of runways and other characteristics which airfields of the future must have. We have set out our ideas in a special pamphlet. Some hon. Members may have seen that, because we have sent it to aircraft constructors, operators, and aerodrome owners and to the pilots themselves, so that they will let us know what they think of it. When we have had their contributions, we will put the pamphlet on sale, and I have no doubt that a pamphlet like this epitomising the most up-to-date and most authoritative opinion, will be the foundation of airfield planning in this country. Having worked out what kind of airfields are needed, we have been looking at the existing airfields in this country to see which of them should be developed for the routes of the future. This means not only inspecting each airfieold, but the surrounding country as well. We have got a long way with our survey. Thus we shall start after the war with an airfield system which was planned, not just grew up, and was planned to take advantage of all developments which the best brains and greatest experience could foresee.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport rightly urged the provision of a great international airport for the future of British civil air transport. I can assure him that that is always in our minds. But military requirements must predominate now. The construction of a modern air port on an international scale—

Mr. Hare-Belisha: Near London.

Sir A. Sinclair: Near London, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that is most important. It would be a costly project, and, when I say costly I mean, of course, not so much in money but in labour and man-power and skill. But in planning, as we have to plan, our military transport facilities, I can assure him that we are not overlooking the importance of the considerations which he has in mind.

Mr. Granville: There was a statement in the Press this morning that British Overseas Airways Corporation have made certain recommendations to the Air Ministry with regard to a London air port. Can


the right hon. Gentleman say whether the delay is in his own Department, and if an announcement may be expected in the near future?

Sir A. Sinclair: There is no delay at all. The fact is that we are using all the resources of this country now for the prosecution of the war. Fortunately, this is not a question on which there is much conflict of interest. There is hardly any. As my hon. Friend knows, we need fine airports built for Transport Command, and in planning such airports we shall certainly have in mind the possibility of extension to the still ampler scale which will be required for international air transport after the war.

Mr. Perkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether they have definitely chosen the sites, whether they have paid for them, and whether the land is theirs?

Sir A. Sinclair: It is not a question for British Overseas Airways Corporation but for my Department. All I can say on that is, that any project which we have in mind now is a project solely for war purposes. At this moment, when we are approaching the climax of the war, we could not and would not undertake any project which was solely for civil aviation purposes. But what I ask hon. Members to understand is this—because it is really the essence of the whole thing—that we must have very large airports for transport purposes. The demands of Transport Command are as great now, and will be for some years to come, as those of civil aviation will be. They require runways as long, and facilities as ample, and in meeting those demands we shall meet them in such a way as will facilitate the meeting of the requirements of international air transport.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: The question of the location of the grand international airports to be set up in this country is a matter of some importance to different parts of the country. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the sites now being picked, which are based entirely upon war requirements, are going to prejudice the issue as to the desirability of those sites when civilian requirements alone are under consideration?

Sir A. Sinclair: I am afraid my hon. and learned Friend has misunderstood what I said. I said that this survey is being made having regard to aviation requirements at the present time.

Mr. Perkins: Has the land been bought? Can the answer be "Yes" or "No"?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir, I am afraid that it cannot be "Yes" or "No." The fact is that we are making provision for Transport Command, and only for Transport Command, and we are making no other provision at the present time, but the provision we are making for Transport Command will be useful to British airways.

Mr. Granville: I understand that one official of the British Airways Corporation made a statement to the Press which appeared this morning that they had chosen a site and submitted it to the Air Ministry and were waiting for the decision of the Air Ministry.

Sir A. Sinclair: I think the hon. Member had better take what I say rather than any statement of that kind in the Press. We are preparing for the future to convert to civil use the great technical advances made during the war. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Watford (Air Commodore Helmore) suggested that we should have regard to the importance of blind landing and I can assure him that that is a matter very much in our mind. We began by clearing our ideas by discussions between the several Government Departments that are users of wireless; we went on to get agreement between the countries of the British Commonwealth. The House will remember the recent announcement about the Commonwealth Radio Conference presided over by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aircraft Production and we are aiming at following this by further talks on a broader international basis.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Watford said that speakers had stressed too much matters of administrative detail and he asked the House to get down to the question of production of aircraft. It was just over a year ago that I announced in the House the Government's decision that work should proceed so far as preoccupation with the war would allow on the design on a limited number of aircraft for civil use and on the adaptation for civil use of aircraft which had already proved themselves in war time. Considerable progress has been made with this work. Two committees have been established under the chairmanship of Lord Brabazon. The first Com-


mittee recommended the design of five new types of aircraft and considered that at least four of our wartime military aircraft would be suitable for civil use with varying degrees of modification. In this class the Avro York is now flying successfully. The second, a military transport version of the Halifax bomber, will be readily convertible to civil operations. There is also the famous Short Sunderland flying boat which has already proved its worth as a transport in the hands of B.O.A.C. Then there is the Avro Tudor about which the Lord Privy Seal has made an announcement in another place. But that is not necessarily the final list. I hope that it may be possible to construct civil versions of other types as time goes on.
I now come to the new types. Those recommended by the first Brabazon Committee, as I have said, were five in number. The Minister of Aircraft Production after taking into account the military commitments of the industry found it possible within a short time to select designers for four out of the five and these firms were authorised to prepare outline designs within the brief description given by the Committee. The Minister of Aircraft Production and myself recognised however that it would be of great help to the designers if they could be given a more detailed description of the exact types of aircraft which operators in various parts of the world wanted. I therefore asked Lord Brabazon to preside over a second Committee to undertake the task of drawing up a detailed list of requirements for each type. This Committee, which is still sitting, has done invaluable work. It has taken evidence from many quarters representing a diversity of interests and has considered the problem from every angle in an effort to devise a type of machine which would satisfy the widest possible market. It has studied the wishes of potential operators, it has paid attention to economy of operation and with the help of departmental advisers has considered various technical aspects. In the course of its review it has recommended the design of two new types additional to the original five.
All these recommendations I have accepted. The first of the seven types is the big trans-Atlantic landplane being designed by the Bristol Aeroplane Company, about which the Lord Privy Seal has already spoken in another place. The

second is a landplane of over 100,000 lbs. all-up weight which will be capable of operating the North Atlantic route with an interim stop at Newfoundland. It will also be suitable for long range operation on other trunk routes. Like the Bristol machine it will have a pressure cabin. The third is a slightly smaller four-engined aircraft, of about 70,000 lbs. all-up weight, which will also be pressurised. It will be designed with a more capacious body than the previous one and is intended for the operation of trunk routes in medium stages. The fourth is a twin-engined landplane, with a pressure cabin of about 40,000 lbs. all-up weight, and is capable of seating about 30 passengers. This will be suitable for European services and other short-medium range work. The fifth type is a revolutionary one, of which I cannot yet give any details, but its main purpose is that it shall represent the application to civilian purposes of jet propulsion. Its speed will far outclass that of any civil machine now in operation. The sixth is a landplane of conventional design for which the Brabazon Committee's specification has not yet been drawn up. It will seat about 14 passengers and is intended for use on feeder lines in the Colonies and in other overseas countries. It will also be suitable for internal services in this country. The seventh and last is a smaller twin-engined landplane of 8,000 lbs. all-up weight, seating up to eight passengers. It will also be suitable for feeder lines and taxi work.
That is the complete list as it stands to-day. I have not attempted to forecast the dates when these various types will be ready for service, as progress is so intimately bound up with the course of the war, but we shall press on with vigour so far as our military obligations allow. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud particularly stressed the point of engines and engines for civil air transport. From what I have said he will see that these are very much in our minds. Within the last few days my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Aircraft Production has been good enough to send me a programme of large scale adaptations to existing engines for the use of civil air transport, and of new engines freshly designed for the purpose of civil air transport. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Watford said, war requirements must predominate. I must tell the Minister of


Aircraft Production what our war requirements are, and he must decide what design and production capacity can be made available for these other purposes. As I have said, we are pressing forward with vigour, so far as our military obligations allow, on the lines which my hon. and gallant Friend proposes.
My hon. and gallant Friend also made some interesting observations on the importance of an international air force and the relation to security of plans for international civil air transport. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough deprecated the view that every civil aircraft is a potential bomber. He said that we had gone into another era and that a transport aircraft was no more a potential bomber than the "Queen Mary" was a battleship. I am afraid that that is looking some way further ahead than we have yet reached. A bomber is more like a civil aircraft than it is like most other forms of military aircraft, and we must always remember—as I have always remembered and my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport has impressed on us to-day and on previous occasions—the importance of military air transport. The relation between civil air transport and transport units of the Royal Air Force, which of course have to provide for the needs of the other two Services, particularly the rapidly increasing demands of the Army, is quite different from that of the Admiralty and the Merchant Navy.
After all, the merchant marine grew up even before the Admiralty and long swam by itself, whereas for many years to come we shall have a Transport Command—I expect it to be a permanent part of the Royal Air Force but for many years to come it will be a very large part—[HON. MEMBERS: "Always."] It will always be a part of the Royal Air Force and for many years to come it will number many more aircraft than the aircraft at the disposal of Civil Air Transport. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport was inclined to regret the concentration upon fighter machines at the expense of transport machines. He said he was making no reproaches. I do not suppose he was, because, if there were reproaches, it would be for him rather than for me to answer them for, after all, we have built up Transport Command and it was we who found that there were no military transports and not many fighters at the beginning of the

war, and we had to put the whole of our strength and energy into the production of appropriate types.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The Air Force did not take that view.

Sir A. Sinclair: Because it had such inadequate resources at its disposal, fighters were more important. He said, "See what the Germans did with their airborne division at Crete." They never tried it again. They never tried again because of our superior air power, in the face of which it was impossible for their airborne divisions to operate. You must win the war in the air first and then, and only then, operate with airborne divisions.
All this, however, brings me back to the point where I started in commenting on the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend, the supreme importance of subordinating any international organisation for civil air transport to any authority there may be for international security after the war. Some hon. Members took exception to the view which has been expressed that there should be an International Police Force after the war but, when my hon. and gallant Friend suggested an Inter-Allied Police Force I was delighted to find that that met with warm approval in all parts of the House. No one would suggest for a moment that our enemies should have any lot or part in any international Air Force of the future. I think we all ought to come to a general agreement on the basis that my hon. and gallant Friend suggested—that it was well worthy of study and fostering and that there should be after the war permanent co-operation between those who fought side by side during the war against the enemies of mankind in preserving permanent peace.

Mr. McNeil: The right hon. Gentleman said none of us would visualise our enemies having any part in future in an international police force. I take it that he meant in the immediate post-war future, to which everyone will agree, but it is such a serious statement that I expect he wants to qualify it.

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir, I do not want to qualify it in the least. It is clear to the House, and it will be to the country, that I was dealing with the immediate post-war period. Prophecy is a gratuitous form of error and I would not look too far forward into the future. I was talking about the arrangements we should make for the


preservation of peace immediately after the war. On these lines we are working with a will in close co-operation with other Departments, under the skilful co-ordination and vigorous leadership of the Lord Privy Seal, to prepare a great future for British civil aviation. I believe that rapid and easy transport by air will do much to reinforce the cohesion and influence of the British Commonwealth and Empire, and, if accompanied by wise measures of international organisation, will serve the interest of trade and the security of mankind.

Sir A. Beit: Before asking the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment, may I thank my right hon. Friend for the courteous reply he has given to Members who have spoken in the Debate? He will forgive me if I say that we are not altogether satisfied with the answers he has given to the two main points we have brought out and that at a later date we shall have to return to the attack.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Fourth Resolution agreed to.

REPORT [2nd March]

Resolutions reported:

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1944

NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

1. "That such number of Land Forces of all ranks, as His Majesty may deem necessary, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and Abroad, exclusive of India and Burma, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945.

PAY, ETC., OF THE ARMY

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945.

TERRITORIAL ARMY AND RESERVE FORCES

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Territorial Army, Training Corps, Home Guard, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945.

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1943

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10 be granted to His Majesty, to defray

the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

SCHEDULE



Sums not exceeding.



Supply Grants.
Appropriations.


Vote.
£
£


1. Pay etc., of the Army
10
110,000,000

First Resolution agreed to.

Second Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Viscountess Astor: We have set up a committee to look into the question of Service pay. I am not one of those people who think that during war we can get equality in everything. War shows up the inequalities of human beings, and I consider that some people live in the light and some in the dark. Those who live in the light see what the war is about and are prepared, if they think it is right, to make the greatest sacrifices to win it. They are the fortunate ones.
Some people live in the dark and they think the war is a time to make profits for themselves, not always industrial profits, but profits of one kind and another. I do not think we can get complete equality anywhere. There are, however, some inequalities we ought to try to rectify. One of them is in the question of Service pay, particularly of the married man. We started off on the wrong foot, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) was responsible. Instead of trying to protect the married woman's position and give her all we could, an allowance was made for women who are unmarried, those known as the unmarried wife and unmarried mother. That would never have happened if some of us had had our way. It has caused great feeling among honest married women. This would not have happened if there had been someone in the War Office who better understood the position of the married mother with children. The basic pay of a soldier is 21s.,


and the compulsory allotment to his wife is 3s. 6d., leaving him with 17s. 6d. a week. I believe that even the Bevin boys get 10s. a week for their amusements. It is true that a married soldier has entertainments and other facilities, but 17s. 6d. is not a very great deal.
Now the wife gets 21S. 4d., plus 3s. 6d., making a total of about 25s. per week. The allowance for the first child is 9s. 6d. and 8s. 6d. for the second. The total family allowance for a wife and two children is £2 3s. a week. It really is not possible for those people to keep a proper borne with proper conditions, and to live in a right way, on that very small allowance. In some cases a Service wife may be living next door to a civilian, and the comparison is very hard. The Minister says that to increase their pay will create inflation and that we shall all be ruined. I do not know whether that is so, but I know there was a very important letter in "The Times" yesterday, saying that that was not known. I am not an economist and I do not pretend to be one, but I say that the Government are creating a very bitter feeling if they do not take some action to help the married Service wives who have families. When some of these women get into difficulties they have to borrow, and if they cannot borrow they have to go to private charity. This House of Commons ought to impress the Government in every way that something must really be done to give these people a chance of a decent life.
The women feel the pinch in all sorts of ways, chiefly in regard to the children. It is a terrific sacrifice for a mother and there are things that men cannot understand very well. The women may want to remove, when there is the cost of the removal of the furniture, or the children's clothes may be outgrown. Above all, are the maternity expenses. It is true that the Government give a pre-natal allowance that helps, but for the woman who goes into a hospital or a home there is the problem of making arrangements for her children to be looked after. After paying the fees for the home and the midwife, there is nothing left to pay a neighbour to look after the children during that time. That is one of the most difficult problems. A case was brought to my notice the other day in which the only hostel that would look after a child charged 30s. a week. Of course, that was absurd. The women say that they would like a little extra in

order to send parcels to their husbands or sons, but they literally cannot do it, especially when they have young children, as they have not a penny to spare.
The real grievance with us in Plymouth is the Government's refusal to recognise full payment of mortgage commitments. A man who was buying a house in 1939 has now been away for five years. The Government pay the equivalent of the interest on the mortgage, but the man is no nearer owning his house, while a man at home getting very good wages has had an opportunity of paying off his commitments. I hope the Government will see that that is a real grievance among, I do not say very many, but a number of people.
The Government tried to assure the old age pensioner that he would have 20s. a week for living expenses after payment of rent, but the Service man's wife is only to have 18s. a week. Everything is so muddled and mixed. There does not seem to be any real plan for the whole of the country. I have always felt that when the present Prime Minister became Prime Minister he could, if he had wished, have got this country on almost a level rate because I believe that a great many men at home who are making a good deal of money feel the inequalities between the serving man and themselves. They feel it as much as anybody else. I do not believe that we ought to go on giving in to the men at home when the men who are away cannot say a word. I am sure that the country would have been ready for that universal sacrifice. I believe it is ready now to do what is right regarding the basic pay of our married serving men. There are war service grants but these are to meet commitments made before enlistment and allow the family a decent standard of life, but in no case can it exceed £3 a week. The War Service Grants Department receives about 5,000 new or revised claims each week, and 535,000 grants are being paid. Far more people apply in the hope of getting relief. Applicants are never told the reason for the refusal or the rejection of their claim. That is a grievance. When they come out it helps if they are told why they are refused.
Parents of serving men often suffer real hardship, and when they go to be helped they have to prove need. I have always believed in a means test but sometimes it is too mean a thing. This is too mean


a means test. There is an emergency grant paid in cases of serious or prolonged illness or death and up to £10 is paid for funeral expenses and £10 for the doctor's bill. These things are being done by the Government, but only in exceptionally hard cases.

Mr. Speaker: I think the Noble Lady is talking about war service grants. If so, they come under the Ministry of Pensions and not under the Army Vote.

Viscountess Astor: I was talking about where the wives of serving men can go and get these grants.

Mr. Speaker: That has got nothing to do with the Secretary of State for War. It is a matter for the Ministry of Pensions.

Viscountess Astor: Then I had better say no more about that. These matters are all going before the Committee which the Government are setting up. I do not know who they have put on that Committee but I hold that at this time there is such feeling not only among serving people, but people who are not serving and such real hardship that I hope that this House of Commons will see that the basic rate for married Service men is raised, and also the allowance for the children. Those who have not got parents and those who have not a little savings are simply driven to private charity. That is not what we want.
Americans and Canadians, it is pointed out, get higher rates of pay. That is perfectly true, but we know that until the last 25 years the British soldier wherever he went got a higher rate of pay than those of any other country in the world. There are these inequalities and we cannot perhaps make the rates of pay as high as those of some other nations but we can assist the man who is away from home to see that his wife is not driven to borrow and beg, and to go to work when she should not do so, and that their children are not mortified and can have a decent standard of living, which everybody in the country wants them to have.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The Noble Lady has raised a number of points regarding pay and allowances of the Army. In view of the fact that a meeting is to take place this week between members of

the Government and hon. Members representing all sections in the House, which will cover very fully the ground that she has traversed to-day, I am quite sure that she will not expect me to answer the speech she has made.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Third and Fourth Resolutions agreed to.

REPORT [7th March]

Orders of the Day — NAVY ESTIMATES, 1944.

Resolutions reported:

NUMBERS

1. "That such numbers of Officers, Seamen, Boys and Royal Marines and of Royal Marine Police, as His Majesty may deem necessary, be borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945."

WAGES, ETC., OF OFFICERS AND MEN OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES AND OF CERTAIN OTHER PERSONNEL SERVING WITH THE FLEET

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines and of certain other personnel serving with the Fleet, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945."

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1943

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year."

SCHEDULE



Sums not exceeding.



Supply Grants.
Appropriations in Aid.


Vote.
£
£


1. Wages, etc., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines and of certain other personnel serving with the fleet
10
40,000,000

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Astor: We have had six rather heated hours on civil aviation, and six uncontroversial minutes on the Army. I feel that one might say now, What about a word for the Navy? I regret very much that the senior Service has been put last, because points of very great importance were raised last year, I think properly, on Vote A, which necessitate the House devoting a little time to their consideration. Last year, there were put before the First Lord, on Vote A, very important points regarding pay, promotion and appointments, to do with the Naval Reservists. These points were received very sympathetically indeed by the Admiralty, and the result was a statement on 7th July, which dealt with the special grievances put up, and the First Lord gave an important general statement that it was the policy of the Admiralty that the officers of the Naval Reserve should have prospects commensurate with the service they have rendered and comparable to those of corresponding officers in the other Services. This pledge, given by the Admiralty, has been carried out in the spirit and in the letter.
I think the House should realise the vastly important position of the Naval Reserve, compared with 12 months ago. There is only one small point, and that is that, if there was a slight disappointment it was because, when they made 12 commanders, only three of them were executive officers. The rest were doctors or accountants or electrical specialists of different sorts. We hope it will be possible, when next they make 12 R.N.V.R. commanders, they will be 12 executive officers. There was one small controversy as to higher ranks. Reserves can only say that they hope everybody will be considered on their merits, irrespective of their stripes, and that it will not be considered that a job is only suitable for an R.N.V.R. officer, but everybody will be considered absolutely on their merits.
The Reserves are about 90 per cent. of the Navy to-day. They are no longer mainly a small-ship group, dealing with coastal forces, or even destroyers and the Fleet Air Arm. Even in great aircraft carriers, and even in the Battle Fleet, there is a substantial proportion of Reserve officers, and I think it is important

to consider what was the situation of the Reserves before the war and what it has grown out of. There were only six divisions—I use the word "divisions" in the naval sense and not in the Army sense—of the R.N.V.R. before the war. There were only 1000 R.N.V.R. officers, of whom only 425 were executive officers, and it was reckoned that it cost these officers something like £50 a year out of their own pockets in order to cope with that work.
There were only 6,350 trained R.N.V.R. ratings at the beginning of the war, and that was in excess of the establishment, which was only 4,600. The training of this small force was hampered by the parsimony of the Exchequer and the Admiralty. One division was unable to have proper sea training because of the lack of some £15 a year. The special branch, of which I was a member, was unable to get any training of any sort whatever. The R.N.V.S.R., which was a far-sighted innovation of the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), managed to earmark 2,500 yachtsmen for the R.N.V.R., but they had no training of any sort, and we have had largely to depend on the efforts of the Little Ships Club and the Navy League, with its work for the Sea Cadets. These were the three things we suffered from in the Naval Reserve—small numbers, lack of training facilities and lack of contact with the Royal Navy. That lack of contact with the Royal Navy has been removed, and the Royal Navy is now reserve-minded, and Reserves feel that they are an integral part of the Fleet.
The following post-war points must be considered, because the losses of the Royal Navy proper in this war have been probably the severest of any body of men in this country. We have to consider what conditions will be offered to Reserve officers for incorporation in the post-war Navy. The R.N.V.R., after the war, should be stronger and should have more sea-going facilities, and arrangements should be made to see that the Royal Navy will remain reserve-minded. I think an important point in this direction is that the post of Admiral commanding the Reserves should, after the war, not be given to a Vice-Admiral who will retire, and with whose retirement a valuable experience is thus lost to the Navy, but should be a junior Rear-Admiral, with a sea-going


career in front of him, able to bring all that experience of the Reserves to the service of the Navy. We hope that, after the war, they will continue the special branch and the R.N.V.S.R. and I hope the First Lord will consider the position of the real Reserves—that small group who trained and volunteered before the war. We might have made special uniforms, but I think the best way to do it, and I hope the First Lord will consider it, will be to shorten the period of qualification for the Reserve decoration. In the Debate on the Estimates, the right hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), with the best intentions in the world, suggested that we should all have the same stripes. If he were here, I could assure him that the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve has a special feeling for its own stripes and will give them up only with great reluctance.
Another development of the war which must be kept on is the Sea Cadet Corps. There are tens of thousands, with several thousand officers, who, apart from their war work, are occupied with this in their spare time several evenings a week. I think these officers deserve a special word of recognition from the First Lord. Anybody who saw, as I had the fortune to see last Sunday, a Division of this Sea Cadet Corps, could not but be impressed by the work done by these boys. After the war they will need stronger staffing and progressive training. They must be considered as part of the educational machine of this country, not only as pre-entry for the Royal Navy but as pre-entry for the Merchant Navy. We want to see the decasualisation of the Merchant Navy and so get the same type of boy coming into both, training in the same school of Sea Scouts, and that same propaganda value which attaches to the visits of His Majesty's ships to foreign parts from the bearing and conduct of their seamen will attach also to ships of the Merchant Navy.
I hope that before the National Government break up they will make a final decision on the question of National Service. It is impossible for the Fighting Services to plan after the war unless they know whether National Service is to be retained or not. I hope that while the National Government are still in existence, this point will be considered and that they will reach an agreed decision

and stick to it. It is important for the Navy and even more important for the Army.
On the question of the W.R.N.S, I think that their pay and conditions are, broadly, satisfactory. Their troubles, as far as they have any, are mainly what one might call internal ones. There is very often misuse of material. The other day I found a highly trained woman secretary being used in the mess as a waitress and it was regarded by the Department as a perfectly normal thing and that it did not reflect on the W.R.N.S. organisation that this should be so. I conducted a correspondence with the Department, a correspondence conducted in verse on both sides, and it was a very good-humoured one. It is the job of those who have authority to see that their abilities are used to the full. In some places they have been over staffed. There is the other trouble coming from the excess of zeal on the part of W.R.N.S. officers, who perhaps have not the same traditions as men officers. I know of one case where W.R.N.S. have to wait in a certain office for certain signals, and, if no signals come in, they have to sit with their hands crossed, and they are not allowed to read or knit or to play patience. They have to sit there. That clearly is not in accordance with the ancient traditions of the Navy and might be remedied. Sometimes W.R.N.S. have been victimised for making complaints about food. I know of one particular case where a member of the W.R.N.S. complained and afterwards was made to apologise to the cook. I will not go into names and places, but that will give the House an idea of the sort of trouble one gets in a Service which has been improvised in wartime. I hope that we shall keep the nucleus of the W.R.N.S. organisation on a volunteer basis after the war. I now want to deal with the question of officers' pay which I think comes under this Vote.

Mr. Speaker: That comes under the next Vote.

Mr. Astor: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Shall I be in Order in trying to catch your eye on the next Vote?

Mr. Speaker: The question of pay will come up on the next Vote.

Mr. Astor: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and hope to have the good fortune to catch your eye on the next Vote.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Pilkington): There seems to have been what I would describe as a joint family admonition to the two Senior Services on this occasion in the friendliest way. I would say we appreciate very much the references of my hon. Friend to the way that the Admiralty carried out the undertaking made last year. He referred to a number of points dealing with the Reserves which should be considered in their post-war organisation, and I can assure him that all those points will be taken into consideration when the times comes. He also made special reference to the Sea Cadet Corps, and I can tell him that the most excellent work which the instructors and the members of the Sea Cadet Corps are doing up and down the country is fully realised in the Admiralty. I myself have seen a good deal of them, and my right hon. Friend takes a very great interest in them himself, and has paid numerous visits to them all over the country. If I assure him that the matters which he raised about the Reserves will be looked into when the times comes for preparing reorganisation of the Reserves, he will, perhaps, rest satisfied with that assurance.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL)

Bill to provide, during 12 months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and the Air Force; ordered to be brought in by Sir James Grigg, Mr. A. V. Alexander, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Arthur Henderson, and Captain Harold Balfour.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL,

"to provide, during 12 months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and the Air Force": presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 16.]

REPORT [7th March].

Second Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Astor: I would like to raise a few points on the pay and allowances of naval officers. The question of naval ratings is, broadly, covered by the Debate which took place on the Army Estimates and it is not necessary to produce specific naval troubles in this matter which are different from those of the Army. From the point of view of naval officers, however, I would like to put the case of officers employed ashore either at the Admiralty or at home ports.
While the average rate of industrial earnings in this country has gone up 76 per cent. the figures which the First Lord supplied as regards the net emoluments of officers show that officers between the ranks of lieutenant and commander have had a decrease of something like 10 to 15 per cent. Now the cost of living has admittedly gone up 30 per cent.—it may well, in fact, have gone up a good deal more. The cost of replacement of all capital goods—clothes, furniture, and so on—has gone up something like 100 per cent. Is the lodging allowance really adequate? Could the First Lord, could the Admiralty give a list of places where an officer serving in the Admiralty can, within convenient distance of his work, get lodgings for £60 or £80 per annum? And usually he lives in furnished lodgings, which are not controlled. Then there is trouble about the lodging allowance when an officer ashore gets his wife to come and live with him in lodgings and keep house. He immediately proceeds to lose his lodging allowance, and that is very hard. They may both be in lodgings, their home may be shut up, and they lose this allowance.
I do think the Admiralty might see whether they could meet officers half way, and let them retain, say, 60 per cent. of the lodging allowance. The allowance for food is 4s. a day. Are the Admiralty satisfied that officers can feed themselves on that? The clothing allowance has been raised from £40 to £50, but I have been through the itemised lists with the leading naval outfitters and they say only the barest minimum can be provided for £60. An officer really needs £65. Anybody who tried to get an outfit for £60 would be cold, and his clothing would soon get very shabby. It is hard for officers who have no private means. Where are they to get the money which will make up the difference between comfort and discomfort? I


would say, let all officers have blue battle dress as a free issue and wear it always except on ceremonial occasions. We would all prefer to be in proper blue with brass buttons, lout in wartime it would be possible to save a considerable amount of money for naval officers.
Not only do officers suffer hardships under the present system, but the appointing authorities are not able to put the right men in the right place. Many officers appointed to shore jobs ask to be sent back to sea because they cannot live ashore. That does not lead to the efficient conduct of the war. I invite the First Lord of the Admiralty to ask appointing authorities what they feel about the present situation. There is an inscription over the room which Nelson used in Port Royal which reads "In this place dwelt Horatio Nelson. He who treads his footsteps, remember his glory." It would be appropriate to put this inscription over naval establishments in this country. Naval officers are living up to his glory. I hope the Admiralty and the House will deal worthily with those officers.

Mr. McKinlay: I want to ask the First Lord a question about the wages of seamen and other ratings repatriated to Cairo who signed documents, presumably dealing with their wages. I raised this question on a previous occasion, but the newspapers never commented on it. I was assured that a document was sent dealing with payments due to the men, that the document was in Italian and that it had nothing to do with any declaration that they would not fight again. What I want to ask is whether there was an exchange of documents. Did the personnel who were repatriated from this country sign a similar document relating to payment? Could I have the assurance of the First Lord that copies of the document alleged to have been signed by the naval ratings are in the possession of the Admiralty?
It is peculiar if the British Government have not a copy of the document, in Italian, which was signed by our seamen. Can we have any information on this, because one of my constituents contends that he has not been paid the money that is due to him? If he signed a declaration on being repatriated a copy of that document must be in existence. If so, can we have an assurance that a copy will

be placed in the Library so that hon. Members can see it for themselves? This is an important matter. If documents are signed by our nationals on being repatriated, and no copy is retained by the Admiralty, we are entitled to an explanation. Perhaps, the First Lord could let me have a copy for my own personal examination.

Captain Pilkington: The question just asked by my hon. Friend opposite was answered at Question Time some time ago. The arrangements concern pay only; they have nothing at all to do with future service or anything like that. With regard to his suggestion that a copy of the document should be placed in the Library, I am not prepared to give an undertaking to-day, but we will consider the matter. I can answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) in one sentence. The adequacy of these allowances has been under consideration in the Admiralty for some time, and we shall consider the reports which have been asked for, from the various Commands, when they come in.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Third Resolution agreed to.

REPORT [1st March]

Resolutions reported:

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1943

Class II

FOREIGN OFFICE

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,525, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3rst day of March, 1944, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the salary of a Minister of State."

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £53,873, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services."

Class V

OLD AGE PENSIONS

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £350,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the payment of Old Age Pensions, pensions to blind persons, and for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith."

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — INDIA (ATTACHMENT OF STATES) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Attachment of States.)

The Chairman: Mr. Amery.

Mr. Maxton: I should like to ask the chief Whip who is on duty if he proposes to proceed with this Measure now and if he expects to get it to-day. Earlier in the day I made inquiries through the usual channels as to what the likely course of events would be and it was indicated to me that we should be reaching it comparatively early. Now that time-table, for reasons which have nothing to do with me, seems to have been knocked all ends up. Is it proposed to proceed now with what to some of us is a rather more important Measure than is to be judged from its mere size?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): Unfortunately it is necessary to take the Committee stage because, if we do not get the Bill to-day. I am not quite sure that we shall have another opportunity of putting it forward. We hoped to have got on to it much earlier but the Business of the House has been prolonged. We are never anxious to keep the House unduly late but we feel that the Bill must be got on with.

Mr. Sorensen: Seeing that there is a certain amount of tension about the Bill, would it not be just as well if it were recognised that it needed more prolonged consideration and therefore might it be postponed?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I regret any inconvenience caused to hon. Members, but the passage of this Measure is, for administrative reasons, of the very greatest importance, and any delay can only have the effect of creating

great inconvenience and disorganisation in the administration of the States concerned.

Mr. Maxton: If the right hon. Gentleman is leaving the question of the timetable to deal with the merits of the Bill, I should like to ask responsible authorities of the House to reconsider their decision on this matter. I cannot really accept the view that in a Measure of this description raising constitutional issues in India, a fortnight here or there is of first-class urgent importance. This, as we were led to believe in the right hon. Gentleman's absence, is a matter of 150 years' history. I cannot really be persuaded that it must be dealt with now or something tragic will occur. I could not be persuaded of that. I do not know what is the Government's business in advance, but I should have thought that it was not impossible to find time for this Bill between now and Easter. In any case my antagonism to it is increased—

The Chairman: The hon. Member cannot carry on a discussion at this moment. It there is to be any discussion it must be put in Order by a Motion. If, however, the hon. Gentleman merely wishes to ask a question I will allow him to do so, but he cannot discuss it.

Mr. Maxton: I do not want to move to report Progress. I do not even want to call attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present, or do several other things I could do if I wanted to be fractious and disagreeable. I am asking the Government not to try to rush the Bill in a badly depleted House after a day in which the House has been heavily engaged.

Mr. Amery: I fully appreciate the spirit of what my hon. Friend has said. I should point out, however, that the Amendment standing in my name and the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) should not take any great time to discuss. On the other hand, the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton)—in Clause 1, page 1, line 13, to leave out "paragraph (a)"—raises again the whole issue of the Second Reading, which was fully taken a little while ago. I suggest that we might, at any rate continue, and I do not believe our proceedings will be unduly prolonged.

Mr. Sorensen: I shall try to abbreviate my remarks as much as possible, but it seems deplorable that we should discuss


matters of great importance affecting 800,000 people, and -potentially another 2,000,000, at this time of day. In the circumstances the Secretary of State would have rendered some service to these people if he had agreed to postpone the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: It must be obvious to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Chair that there is enough material on the Order Paper on this Bill to keep the Committee going for three or four hours. It affects 400,000,000 people. I could say all I have to say in a very short time and scamp the business, but to be satisfied I need more time than that. To ask us to take this Bill now is to treat India badly on the one hand, and to treat the Committee badly on the other, and it is not a fair proposition for the Government to ask Members at this time to get ahead with it and do it quickly. That is not the way to do Parliamentary business.

Mr. Amery: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, after "Act)," to insert:
being a State included in the Western India States Agency or the Gujarat States Agency on the twenty-fifth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-three.
The Bill is necessary in the interests of the people in these States in India whose whole affairs are in suspense and great difficulty owing to the absence of administrative officers and not knowing who are to be their administrative officers. It is of vital importance to clarify the one point raised by a particular judicial decision as to the powers of the Viceroy as Crown Representative. That is the only point for which this Bill has been introduced. It is in order to get rid of an immediate condition which is gravely prejudicing the welfare of the people concerned.
Coming to the Amendment, I should like to apologise for my involuntary absence at the time of the Second Reading and to thank my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education and the Attorney-General for the great trouble they took to master this rather complicated Measure and to explain it in what was a very full Second Reading Debate. The only purpose of this Measure is to clarify the position of the Crown representative, which was affected by a judicial interpretation of a certain Clause in the Government of India Act, which was devised by this House for an entirely different purpose. It never occurred to any

of the people concerned here or in India that it applied to this particular case.
In making the definition which stands in the Bill, we took from the India Act the type of State in which the Viceroy, as Crown Representative, is responsible for certain official actions, which are susceptible, or were always thought to be susceptible, to transfer to officials of the other Indian States. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) pointed out that the definition, as drawn, covered a much wider number of people and States than the particular Kathiawar and Gujarat States in whose interests it was essential to make clear the position, but there was no intention of applying the same method to those other States. In the other parts of India, indeed, geographical and political conditions would not lend themselves to it. The President of the Board of Education advised me—and I entirely agreed—that it might therefore be preferable to draw the definition a little more narrowly, and that is why the words are proposed to be inserted, to make clear that this matter, though dealing primarily only with the Viceroy's rights as Crown Representative, arises in connection with those small States in Kathiawar and Gujarat.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Before saying anything about the Amendment, I would like to express my great pleasure—and I think I speak for the whole Committee—in welcoming my right hon. Friend back and seeing him looking so well. He has gone so far as to accept my suggestion, and I therefore express my thanks for what he has done. The whole situation created by the Bill is complex, but I believe that, when all the facts are taken into consideration, the proposed limitation of the scope of the Bill will be for good, and I hope it will be agreed to.

Mr. Maxton: The fact that this Amendment has been produced is clear evidence that it was worth while debating the matter on the Second Reading. It might quite well be that a more careful and extended consideration would induce the Government of India to come to the conclusion not only that they were a little hurried and slipshod in the drafting of Clause I, which is now being amended, but also a little hurried and slipshod in the drafting of the Bill as a whole. I understand the effect of the Amendment will be to reduce


the number of individuals who will be affected from something like 3,000,000, which was my hon. Friend's estimate, to something under 1,000,000. I think the whole thing is objectionable, but I do not object to the limitation of this objectionable Measure to a smaller number.

Sir Stanley Reed: The situation is a little different from that explained by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). The effect of the Amendment is to restrict the Bill to an actual area which has undergone exhaustive and elaborate inquiry during the last 12 years, and which was embraced in the Order of April last year. The Bill, being an enabling Bill, might have extended over a wider area, but it was never intended to extend this matter beyond the area of that careful and elaborate inquiry, where the need was greatest in the whole of India. Therefore, it is also necessary because my hon. Friend and others were given the assurance that it would not cover more than 800,000 people. As an enabling Bill it would have covered more. This brings the Bill down to the actual limit of the number put before the House.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: Before calling upon the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) I ought perhaps to tell him that I propose to call his first Amendment. The second is out of Order, being beyond the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Sorensen: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, after "attached," to insert:
after consultation and agreement with the Taluqdars or other recognised representatives of the peoples of the States affected.
I have already mentioned the fact that I have no desire to sit late to-day because like yourself, Major Milner, I am very hungry. At the same time this matter is one of urgent necessity, I understand, so we must pay attention to it. In passing it seems strange that we should have this sense of urgency in our minds now when we have been assured by the hon. Member for Aylesbury {Sir S. Reed) that it has had careful consideration for 10 or 12 years. But the Bill is before the Committee now and I am sure that both the Secretary of State and the rest of the Committee would agree that as far as possible we should try to implement the principle of democratic consultation, consent and

agreement on the part of those affected by the Bill. That being so, I must say that however we interpret the many cables that have come to us, and still come, and indeed the letters that come by airmail, whatever motives we may attribute to the senders of these communications, they do seem to indicate that some at least of the peoples of these States are by no means satisfied with the explanations that have been given. I have, for instance, a letter from which I will not quote extensively, even if at all. It arrived only yesterday, dated 17th February, from Rajkot in Kathiawar, and was sent by representatives of the Kathiawar Political Conference. There is no suggestion here that they are Taluqdars but rather that they are representatives of some kind of political movement in certain of the affected States.
I have looked at this very carefully, and I have also read with equal care cables I have received, and I have come to the conclusion that there is perhaps more in this Bill than at first meets the eye. The suggestion made in the previous discussion that the agitation was simply organised by a number of interested Taluqdars I do not think is correct. Apart from the Taluqdars there are, it seems to me, others who are representative of the people in their area. Certainly I find in one of the cables reference to Chiefs. That being so, it seems to me that apart from the Taluqdars and their representative nature there may be others who are also representative of the people in their district.
As I said, I will not read even extracts from the lengthy letter I have received, but I can assure the Committee that the arguments are put forward with restraint but with emphasis, and bear some internal evidence of real feeling on the part of those who have sent the protest. I know it has been urged in respect of my Amendment that there is a difficulty in any case in securing consultation and agreement with Taluqdars or other recognised representatives of the peoples of the States affected. But, on the other hand, I would point out that these States are to be transferred to other States that have representatives of an autocratic or despotic nature, and we do not query in their case whether they are representative of the people or not. We take it for granted they are. Therefore, I would submit that if we grant that in some sense a native


prince's representative has possibly some contact with his people and more or less expresses their need, in the same way we should apply the same principle to the small autocrats, if such they be, called Taluqdars, or Chiefs, or whatever they may be, representing these small areas.
Further, I would urge that, although there has been, apparently, this 12-year-old discussion, the people who are intimately connected are still not satisfied. It is not enough to discuss or consult: the necessity for agreement is just as strong. Otherwise, it is merely discussing with a person how he should be transferred like a slave, without granting him any liberty to please himself whether he shall be transferred or not. It does not seem that there is any particular value in saying to an individual, "You are perfectly free to consent or not consent to come with me; but if you do not consent, you will come all the same." That seems to be to be the approach in this case. I am not sure that Taluqdars are the non-representative people they have been made out to be. In any case, we have left these individual people in possession for many years; it is only now, when this matter is brought up in this House, that we find some Members rising to suggest that these Taluqdars are interested people, representing only themselves.
I would suggest that there is a possibility of securing some kind of agreement. I do not intend to read through this hefty pile of cables in my hand, although I think that I should be quite in Order in doing so. Perhaps I might read extracts from two of them, to show the feelings which exist. I shall not read them in full, but only salient passages:
We deeply regret that true facts relating to the States of Kathiawar and Gujerat, to be attached, is not appreciated. These States have been recognised during the last 135 years as separate political and legal entities, having direct relationship with the Crown, with their existence and integrity guaranteed and given effect to in the Constitution Act, 1935.
This goes on to argue, at great length, legally and not merely emotionally, that they should not be attached. Here is the other, from Gujerat:
We, the third and fourth class states of Kathiawar, are sending you this cable, as there seems to be some misunderstanding that we are classed as Taluqdars, when we are totally different from Taluqdars and Thana owners. We are States, and not estates in any sense, and possess treaties in common with first and second class states in any area.

It goes on:
We pray that this Bill may not be passed finally by Parliament before our views are considered. We understand that the Chamber of Princes and the Standing Committee, who are of the same opinion, have taken up this matter with His Excellency the Viceroy.
That seems to indicate that behind this matter there is more than up to now has been revealed to us. I would like to hear the Secretary of State say whether he can possibly accept this Amendment on democratic grounds, on the assumption that, if once consultation and agreement can take place, the transference, where it was desirable, would meet with approbation, and avoid disturbance. It seems to me if that is not done, we shall always leave bitter sentiments in the minds of large numbers of people, who otherwise might have accepted the transference with content. I do not know whether I am in Order in what I am going to say: if not, I am sure that you, Major Milner, will call me to Order. It seems to me strange that when one looks at the map, so kindly supplied for our consideration and examination, many of these States, or estates, as some prefer to call them, are adjacent to British India.

The Chairman: Discussion of British India is out of Order. The whole question is the Amendment before the Committee, which asks, as I understand, for consultation and agreement. The scope of the Bill is such that it does not permit of discussion of British India.

Mr. Sorensen: With all due respect, Major Milner, I do not want to transgress your Ruling. I intended to use that as an illustration of the fact that, had there been some consultation those concerned might have decided to opt for British India, preferring to come under the British Crown than under an autocratic Prince. I will leave it at that, and assure you that I merely brought it forward as an illustration of the need of further consultations. I trust that this is in Order. If there had been a desire to secure unity and order in that part of India, why is it that many of the broken-off or scattered portions of large States are not affected by this Bill? There is no suggestion in this Bill, in the interests of unity and order, that these should be transferred to other States. That being so it seems to be one more piece of evidence in support of my contention that there has been no real consultation


and desire to secure agreement. For that reason, I beg to move my Amendment, because only in that way can we vindicate our democratic professions.

Sir S. Reed: I fully appreciate the reasons lying behind the Amendment which my hon. Friend has proposed, but I would assure him that he is perhaps under a very considerable misapprehension. I think he has misapprehended entirely the position in relation to the Taluqdars, and if he went to Kathiawar and suggested that the Taluqdars represented the people he would call forth a certain amount of mild abuse. If he will look at the map, he will see, however fitting in principle are the terms of his Amendment, how utterly impracticable it is. If one of these States decided against being attached, the whole system and the growth of the forces of progress in that area would be wrecked and ruined, and we should be thrown back to a position entirely unworthy of that Province. While recognising the generous sentiment at the back of his mind, I would like to assure the hon. Member, for what my assurance is worth, that he would be rendering no service to the area if he were to press his Amendment upon the Secretary of State.

Mr. David Grenfell: I should like to avoid further misapprehension by asking that a suggestion I made in the last Debate should now be operated by the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, he was not present in the House to hear the point we made on the last occasion, but I did ask that a particular case of attachment covered by this Bill should be recited to the House in order that we might know exactly what is proposed to be done under the Bill and what nature of objections may from time to time appear. I do not think it is fair to the House. I am not in a position to know what would happen in Kathiawar and Gujerat or any places named, whose location and importance are certainly not in the full cognisance of the House. A Taluqdar may be a very important official in the old India, but apparently his importance is to be lessened by attachment, and his functions are to be changed and handed over to somebody else. I should like the Minister, for the satisfaction of the House, to tell us something of what happens when attachment takes place.

Mr. Maxton: I think the hon. Member has been the most faithful supporter of this Bill since it came before the House, and he knew about it 12 years ago, which is eleven years and nine months before I got to know about it. I think there are quite a number of Members of the House who have not heard about it yet. The hon. Member is much too facile and contemptuous of these small men in India. My hon. Friends and I have learnt that they are very small people indeed, who have not been used to rubbing shoulders with Viceroys. The Taluqdar is a mere subject for contempt, but, after all, he will have been, until this Bill goes through this House, a British citizen.

Mr. Amery: No.

Mr. Maxton: Up to the passing of this Bill his appeals were to British justice.

Mr. Amery: None of his powers are affected by this Bill in any way.

Mr. Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman had better quarrel with the Attorney-General, because my speech is based on his speech and my subsequent reading of HANSARD. My Amendment is intended to elucidate these points. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman challenges my description of a British citizen—and I do not think he could soundly challenge it—I say that he has lived inside the framework of the British Empire—let me choose my words very correctly—under the general tutelage inherent in the paramountcy of the British Government. Will that description meet our responsibilities in the matter? The right hon. Gentleman has been responsible for these people, although he denies that they are British citizens. He is denying now that they are British citizens, but they certainly had the right to be consulted about this matter, not only the few hundreds of the Taluqdar themselves, but hundreds of thousands who have lived under their respective jurisdiction. This Government had a duty to consult them in advance, just as they had the duty to consult the Princes to whose States they were to be attached. Although I have had no communications on that subject, the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White), who took part in the proceedings, indicated that he had had communications from Princes.

The Chairman: I am not anxious to interrupt the hon. Member but he will


appreciate that he is not now addressing himself to the Amendment, as Indian Princes certainly do not came into it.

Mr. Maxton: I started off and was very faithful to the Amendment, certainly up to a point. I may have gone beyond it. I was not only aware that the Taluqdars were not to be consulted but they were to be attached to the various Princes without the Princes being consulted. Is that the point at which I am out of Order? I only use it to indicate that there has been a very facile attitude over the treatment of these people because they are very small people, because they are only a very small number, or they are very inconvenient, or the House of Commons know so little about the subject that they will let it slip through without bothering their heads about it.
I was reading a book at the week-end called "The Framework of the Future." It was sent to me by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and I have to admit quite candidly—I hope it will not be used against me by the Members above the Gangway—that I read a large portion of it with very considerable care, and was impressed by some of the arguments and sentiments expressed. One of them was that if the future is going to be a growth that will endure and be valuable, it should not be built by trying to walk in and mechanically impose new structures on the top of old, but should be a natural growth. But the right hon. Gentleman comes in here and says, "Wipe out this natural growth of the past." I do not know the story of the Taluqdars. I do not know how they preserved their independence surrounded by the Princes on the one hand and the British Empire on the other, but I am one who has had responsibility for maintaining a small party in this House against the big battalions who have had some respect for me. I do not know how these fellows originated and how, with the Princes on one side and the British Empire on the other, they maintained their independence through a long period of history.
I remember an hon. Gentleman who sat, I think, for Oxford University in a previous Parliament, one night getting up and giving us a description of how some of the Princes maintained their principalities, or arrived at their high estate, and it was an interesting tale. The Taluqdars

must have had a similar, interesting history, and here, without regarding them as fit subjects for consideration, for consultation, for previous intimation, the Secretary of State for India—the author of that great world-shaking work "The Framework of the Future"—comes here to-night and says "This past, this historic growth, and the organisation for the future growing out of the past, is good enough for a book but not for practical politics. Away with it." I want to hear him defend himself against that.

Mr. Amery: The speeches to which we have just listened show, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) remarked, a complete misapprehension of what is happening and what is being proposed. There is no question whatever of transferring these States to other States, still less of transferring their peoples as slaves to the jurisdiction of other autocratic rulers. The position of these States remains entirely unaffected, in this respect, that these Taluqdars are going to retain every element of sovereignty which, in their States, they have enjoyed hitherto. Their subjects will continue to be subjects of those States. They have never been British subjects, they are not going to be British subjects or become subjects of any other States. Nor—and there I see misapprehension too in the telegrams which the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) has received—are they going to be excluded from their direct relations with the Crown.
What is going to happen? What has happened? What has been temporarily and very inconveniently suspended by a certain legal decision is that certain administrative services which have either been carried on with certain jurisdiction in these Taluqas and States by agents of the Crown Representative, are going to be carried on by the agents of neighbouring large States which will enable the people of those small States to get the benefits of education and health, and sanitary and irrigation and road services which, owing to geographical conditions, but also owing to the fact that the Crown Representative has no large administrative services at his disposal, cannot be provided efficiently in any other way than by inviting these neighbouring States to render these services.

Mr. Sorensen: If that be so why does not this Bill apply to those small areas which still belong to British India?

Mr. Amery: There, again, I see a misapprehension. The areas which belong to British India are part of the Indian Provinces and can, therefore, enjoy the services of their Provinces. The educational officials or police of those Provinces there can be made available there. The Crown Representative has no administrative services such as an education department, an agricultural department or an irrigation department.

Mr. Sorensen: If that is so why cannot the States which are to be attached to the larger States have the option of being attached to British India?

Mr. Amery: It would not be in Order to discuss that now beyond saying that that would be entirely contrary to the proviso of the main India Act, which was passed for that specific purpose and not for the purpose which has been raised by a particular judgment. The hen Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) asked me to illustrate what is happening and that I am glad to do because I hope it may clear up some misunderstandings. He also asked me to say something about the nature of some of these States. I have a few instances here which I think will show what kind of States they are. I will take the Taluqa of Anida, which consists of 13 different villages in eight different areas, two of them 100 miles apart—

The Chairman: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman is going quite beyond the terms of this Amendment. There might perhaps be another opportunity. I have allowed a certain amount of latitude but the right hon. Gentleman now seems to be going into a Second Reading speech. I hope he will not carry it too far.

Mr. Amery: Then perhaps I could give an explanation on the Amendment which is to be moved by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton).

The Chairman: I was not proposing to call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bridgeton; I was hoping that he would say anything that he had to say on the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill. There would then be an opportunity to say a few words on that Motion.

Mr. Amery: I will be glad to do it then. All I would say in further correction of the misapprehension of the hon. Member for West Leyton is that the machinery of attachment means that a special officer, delegated from the State to which the taluqa is attached, will carry out the provisions of an instrument of attachment which make arrangements for seeing that health, sanitation, road and other services are applied within the taluqa for the benefit of the inhabitants. In return for that there will be a contribution of 10 per Dent of the revenue of the taluqa. The whole of the services will be provided out of the facilities which neighbouring States enjoy and out of their revenues which are much larger than those which the taluqdars themselves have.
May I go back to the main point of consultation? I think it is essential for the Committee to keep in mind the broad relation to the Crown as paramount power, both to the rulers of India and to their subjects. It is a relationship which has grown up over a long period of time. It involves for the Crown a dual responsibility—a responsibility first of all to pay careful regard to all the rights of the sovereign rulers of India, small and large. Secondly they have also a responsibility for the welfare of their peoples. They are their subjects, not British subjects. Those two responsibilities are exercised by the Viceroy as Crown Representative in accordance with his own judgment. They are not matters which can be settled by Parliament. We are not in a position to legislate for their subjects, nor can we properly set up any machinery for consultation. The Viceroy has to consider what is fairest and befit in the interests both of rulers and their subjects.
This problem, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) pointed out in a speech full of knowledge and experience on the Second Reading, has occupied the mind of the Crown Representative far the last 10 or 12 years and many schemes have been considered. The question was how to find a scheme which was the most natural, which would involve the least upset to all concerned and which grew most organically out of the existing system. The scheme decided upon is the most natural geographically because these States are embedded in the major States, most natural historically because they were connected with them even before the British came. Most of them were tribu-


tary to Baroda. Therefore the most natural method was to see whether the needs of their people could be provided for hest by these major States, and indeed the whale idea really originated from a suggestion on the part of Baroda that it was willing to give its services. The Crown Representative framed a scheme which does not affect a single right of the Taluqdars. Their rights in relation to their subjects, their right of direct access to the Crown if the present system does not work, or if they find difficulties in connection with it, their Customs rights, Revenue rights, police rights and jurisdictional rights, in so far as they have them, are all preserved intact. You could not have a fairer or more conservative scheme so far as the preservation of their existing rights is concerned. On the other hand, as far as the subjects are concerned—and it is their interests that ought to appeal most to the House—they will be in a position to get the services which they lack, and which for administrative reasons it is impossible for the Crown representative to supply, from neighbouring States, from officials who speak their own language and are accustomed to their ways. I cannot imagine a scheme more suited to the needs of the people concerned.
As far as consultation is concerned, the constitutional position precludes democratic consultation and intervention in the internal affairs of States, but in so far as informal consultation and discussion is concerned, the representatives of the Viceroy have been discussing the matter with leading people in these various communities for the last five years in regard to this particular scheme and, if there are now more or less organised representations, nothing of the sort occurred until this particular judgment upset the whole system. There was no reason to believe until this judgment that the situation was not working happily in the interests of all concerned. Intervention and the kind of consultation suggested by the hon. Member would not only be unconstitutional but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury suggested, entirely impracticable. We are dealing with 600 States, many of which are divided into a large number of parcels. We are dealing with 965 different administrative units. What form of consultation could there be?
We cannot decide the fate of a number of individual States by a plebiscite of the total population of the States. On the other hand, we cannot decide it by particular scattered administrative units contracting out of a particular State. Besides, there is no question of the kind that might justify a plebiscite, or even a plebiscite of the rulers, no quesion of transferring them and altering their status. All that is happening is that their status remains untouched, but that services of the greatest importance to the well being and progress of their communities are now being made available to them in the most practical fashion. As a necessary and inevitable consequence of that, certain other relatively minor functions, which have hitherto been exercised by officials of the Crown Representatives service, go with them. There is nothing in this Measure of the kind of scale and magnitude or of the effect on those concerned, either rulers or subjects, as the speeches of hon. Members have seemed to imply. It is purely a Measure for the betterment and welfare of these scattered little communities which cannot get the services for themselves, which cannot practically federate together of themselves, and which for high constitutional reasons, apart from geographical reasons, could not be included in British India. This is a simple, workable, conservative method of meeting a real need, a need which must be met at once because of the very difficult situation of the peoples concerned, which has arisen owing to a judgment which entirely upset all previous understandings as to what the powers of the Crown Representative were.

Mr. Sorensen: May we take it that the protests that have been expressed and conveyed to us are all due to a simple misunderstanding, and that, in fact, it is sheer selfishness on the part of these alleged unpleasant Taluqdars?

Mr. Amery: I would not say that all the Taluqdars welcomed the scheme, and there is no doubt a certain feeling that their status will not be so high if they have relationship to the neighbouring States. I believe, however, judging from the various telegrams that have been referred to, that they mostly arise from sheer misconception. The misconception is entertained, not only that the States as such are being transferred and that the Taluqdars are being made subordinates of the States to


which they are attached, but that their status is being diminished. That is not the case. This Measure, though important from the point of view of the welfare of the people concerned, is from the constitutional point of view, so far as the Princes or their subjects are concerned, a very much minor and smaller thing than hon. Members and they themselves have conceived.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman seemed to me to make a very perfect case. Indeed, I thought it was too good. After hearing that, I, like the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), say: "What's the trouble? Where has all the trouble come from?" I understand that, in the beginning, the Government of India were just going to operate along these lines and not bother about any legislation at all. They proceeded on the assumption that it was the right thing to do and they had already done it, but now is the time to legalise it.

Mr. Amery: It is really rather important to make this point clear. This is not legislation dealing with the States. The Crown Representative was going to deal with the States in accordance with what was recognised, and everybody believed, to be his rightful power, as Crown Representative, and in the exercise of the paramountcy of the Crown. A judicial decision, some months after these operations had already taken effect, placed an interpretation upon a Section of the India Act and put doubt upon his powers. The Bill is concerned with nothing more than setting right that misunderstanding, that doubt as to his powers.

Mr. Maxton: It is more than a misunderstanding. It is a misinterpretation of a law. We regretted the absence of the right hon. Gentleman and I am glad to see him back. Obviously he is as fit as ever he was. The Attorney-General told us that the Bill arose because a case was appealed from. As a matter of fact, it was in these territories that somebody committed suicide. I am not surprised. I do not know how it came to be a matter of appeal, presumably to a responsible court. Was that court a British court?

Mr. Amery: It was the Crown Representative's court.

Mr. Maxton: The right lion Gentleman described it as a British court. That court decided that this was illegal. The Attorney-General, like the right hon. Gentleman, commended the Bill to me in a way that always gets folk like the hon. Member for West Leyton and myself, in a soft place, by saying that this was for education or health or something of that sort. We just swallow that whole and say: "That is what we are out for too—education, health and better social conditions, and down with the landlord." Arrange those ingredients in any way you like, and they always get us. They appeal to us because they are the right type of bait for our kind of fish. When we examine the Bill, however, we find nothing in it about education or health or social services. All that is in the Bill is a matter about the jurisdiction of the courts, because the Government have been done down by a court, their own court, in India. Instead of going to the Privy Council with their appeal, they say: "The Privy Council are difficult, an awful lot of fellows, but pretty wise old boys. We will just go and get new legislation. We will start in the House of Lords, because they are even more facile than the House of Commons. Because of the absorption of Lords and Commons in the general European situation and with the war, we will have it through before they wake up." That is the story as I see it. Is that an unfair description?

Mr. Amery: I will give my answer presently.

Mr. Maxton: There is nothing about social service, or liberating the people of these estates from their immediate surroundings, only transferring them to new courts, to somebody else to impose sentences on them, not somebody else to give them health, nutrition or education. Now that the Taluqdar from whom, as I understand, they had an appeal to a British court, is attached to a particular State he retains all the powers he had before, the powers to punish in petty cases, the powers to extract rent, and the powers to extract rates; he is losing nothing.
The Governent must not come and tell me they are liberating the rank and file on the estates from the power of the


Taluqdar because the right hon. Gentleman has proved quite conclusively that the Taluqdar loses none of his powers and few of his dignities. He goes into a State but what does the ordinary man on one of these estates lose? As I understand it, instead of having an appeal from the judgment of his local chief, his local Taluqdar, to a British court—I would like the right hon. Gentleman to correct me now if I am wrong in this—which in the ultimate is responsible to this House, his appeal from that justice, from his own Taluqdar, is to the justice of a native despotic State. His appeal is to the court of a native State. If his appeal was to a British court I could rise in this House and make a scene about it. That was his wee bit of democracy. Once he goes into one of the native States this House of Commons is out because you cannot interfere with their internal affairs.
Because you regard Ranjitsinghi or the Jam of Nawanagar as English people—[Interruption]—I do not think the fact that a fellow sometimes scored a century for an English county club or for England itself 30 years ago necessarily means that for all times the despotic princes in all the States of Baroda, Nawanagar and others will necessarily be the most wise, enlightened, humane and just men. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will disagree with me in that, but that is the conclusion I have come to. The fact that one of the Indian States was once ruled by a fellow who was a first-class cricketer does not lead me necessarily to the conclusion that despotic, absolute government is always of a benevolent nature. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to persuade me of to-day. I think it is also applicable to this Bill that however small they were their treaties, written or unwritten, were honourable bargains direct between themselves and the British Government. The smallest Taluqdar, as I understand it, was there with his rights, his independence such as it was preserved by direct treaty with the Crown here. Now he has only got a second hand independence. These treaties, 600 of them, are to be thrown into the waste-paper basket. I remember how contemptuous the right hon. Gentleman was in the last war of those who tore up treaties, and regarded them just as scraps of paper. He is to-day tearing up 600 scraps of paper. Of course, it does not matter, because these are very

small people. Some of them have only two or three square miles of territory. They are so small that you can kick them as hard as you like. That may be good worldly wisdom, but, in my opinion, it is not good morals, and not good justice, and I do not think that it forms a basis for any steps forward in any part of the Government of India. I oppose this Clause.

Mr. Amery: I am afraid that even my previous explanation has not dispelled from the hon. Member's mind the idea that we are tearing up treaties or affecting in some way the constitutional relationship between the Crown and these States. It has always been a great source of pride to this country that our treaties with the Indian States, small and great, have been observed. There is no breach of that observance at all in these arrangements. I come to the main point which the hon. Gentleman raised, namely, that the powers of the Viceroy to act in this matter were put in doubt by a decision of the Viceroy's own Judicial Commissioner in the special court for that part of India. That is perfectly true. I should be the last person to cast any doubt upon the legal validity of that decision, or upon any further opinion on it that the Privy Council might give if the matter were referred to the Privy Council, but I would point out that, whatever the legal force of the decision, it is based on a Clause in the India Act, which was introduced with one purpose only, to prevent the Viceroy, as Crown Representative, handing over authority in the States to a British Indian self-governing authority. We have always held the view that if the States are to enter into any union in British India, it must be absolutely voluntary, of their own free will, and there can be no question of their being handed over to a British Indian Government against their will.
I come to this particular interpretation. That interpretation, coming after these arrangements had already been put into effect, cast the whole situation in that part of India into administrative confusion. There was a real serious danger to the whole administration of law and order in those little States. In giving them facilities, educational and otherwise, I must make it clear again that there can be no question of our legislating for education in those States. We legislate for our own subjects. But we must liberate the Viceroy from a judgment which made it im-


possible for him to make arrangement with other States to provide services for these communities. Now the hon. Member suggests that we might have waited for a decision of the Privy Council. That necessarily means a good many months, during which the situation, already very serious, would get worse, and that was the reason for the efforts to get this Bill through very quickly, because the situation was getting worse.

Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain that? I have heard about difficulties and troubles in Bengal in the last few months, but I have never heard about trouble in that part of the world. What is the nature of the trouble?

Mr. Amery: Undoubtedly, we have been faced with far more serious troubles elsewhere in India. The nature of these troubles is that, first of all, on the change over taking place the existing British police officials and others were withdrawn, and the action of the Courts was withdrawn; other police officials and education officials and others came in, and we have got into the position in which nobody knows who are the administrative officers to deal with the minor, everyday affairs in these States. What I want to point out is that this delay in reference to the Privy Council would not have saved us from legislation—and legislation of a restrospective character. Let me assume, on the one hand, that the Privy Council did not take the view taken by the Judicial Commissioner, and came to the conclusion that the Crown Representative's action had been perfectly right and in order. Then there would be a great deal of necessary retrospective legislation to validate actions which have been done—and a good many have been taken—on the assumption that the Judicial Commissioner's decision was right. On the other hand, if that decision had been maintained by the Privy Council as a matter of law, nobody could have disputed the law, but, as a matter of practice, it would have been necessary for the Crown, in the interests of the people of the States as well as the rulers themselves, to introduce this legislation all the same, and it would also have had to be retrospective to validate all those actions which had been done. One way or another, this Bill was necessary, and the speedier it is passed the better for the interests of all concerned, and that is the sole reason why this Measure has been introduced.
If I may take advantage of your permission given earlier, Major Milner, I would like to say a word or two about these different States and their character. I will give an example of a larger and a smaller State. The estate of Anida in Western Kathiawar consists of 13 villages in eight different areas, two of them 100 miles apart. The total territory is 13 square miles, with a population of 13,729, and with a total revenue of £6,750. There are two Taluqdars, one of them exercising jurisdiction on the civil side up to £37, and in criminal cases up to two years' imprisonment and a 2,000 rupees fine. He has to maintain 15 policemen, and there are nine schools in the villages but no dispensary. All these powers, judicial or otherwise, remain with the Taluqdar, but it is to be hoped that the villages without schools will now get schools.

Mr. Sorensen: Does this not seem to indicate that Taluqdars are not really the detached unrepresentative legal representatives which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) tried to make out.

Mr. Amery: The Taluqdars' position remains unaffected. If I might refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, I think he gave a picture of the relation of the judiciary to Parliament not entirely consistent with our conception of the rule of law. We do not question or override legal decisions in this House, and I think I can say that the Judiciary, in those States like Gondal, which has just lost a very fine, progressive Ruler, and like Baroda, which have perfectly reliable and trustworthy courts, the people are not at the mercy of the arbitrary, day by day whim of the ruler. I can assure my hon. Friend on that point.
I come from that to the State of Bhadwa, where the particular case was raised. This consists of three separate areas of a total extent of seven square miles, with a population of 1,401 and a revenue of £1,200 a year. The Taluqdar exercises jurisdictional powers enabling him to try civil suits up to the value of £37 10s., and criminal cases involving penalties up to three months' rigorous imprisonment. I come to the estate of Vakhtapur, with an area of 1½ square miles, a population of 390, and a total revenue of £450 a year, with no schools and no hospitals. These little States or


estates are so poor and so scattered that it is beyond their power to provide the ordinary amentities of life which we consider essential nowadays in any ordinary civilised community. The possibility of federating them together was discussed and proved unworkable and would have been found more difficult by the Taluqdars than the present scheme.
All that the present scheme amounts to is to provide, at extremely moderate cost and without loss of any of their existing powers, services which are desirable and indeed essential. It was said on Second Reading that this ought to have been done years ago. The whole of this question of in any way interfering or dealing with the States requires responsible and long deliberation and much consultation. All this has taken place and the outcome of the scheme devised was by general consent the best and fairest scheme to all concerned. It was inaugurated and might have worked smoothly but for the legal decision—I do not pretend to express an opinion on that—which created such administrative difficulties that this particular legislation has had to be introduced merely for the purpose of defining the powers of the Viceroy and making it clear that he enjoys powers which everybody always assumed he did enjoy.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Maxton: Is it necessary to take the Third Reading now?

Mr. Amery: The situation is really urgent.

Mr. Maxton: We have had the Committee stage and the Report stage, and now the Third Reading is proposed with the attendance of the House down to its present figure. There are some decencies that we ought to try and preserve, and I do not think that it is decent to take the Third Reading now.
AN HON.MEMBER: Why not call a count?

Mr. Maxton: I do not believe there are enough people in the precincts to give the necessary Quorum. I am not calling attention to it, but I am asking those who are in charge of the Bill to postpone the Third Reading to another day. I am not saying there is any attempt to obstruct, but in the interests of common Parliamentary decency I suggest that we put the Third Reading down for another day.

Mr. Sorensen: I want to make it clear that, having voiced my protest, I shall not continue with it now, because I should only get a small proportion of the House to support me. But I would like to make it clear that the protests I have tried to voice in this House are not merely on behalf of the Taluqdars only. I am prepared to accept a description of some of them given by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed), but I am fully persuaded that that is not the whole of the story, and that the communications I have received, and the conversations I have had with some in this country might well lead me to the conclusion that there are quite a number in many of these States who are profoundly disturbed. If they are under a misapprehension, the sooner that is cleared up the better. It is well that we have been able to express our views in this manner in order that the people of India may know that there are some in this House who are deeply interested in their fate, and who are determined, whenever they can, to raise their voices on their behalf.

Mr. Amery: I would appeal to hon. Members, after the very full explanation that has been given of the really limited scope of this Bill, both on Second Reading and to-day, not to press the point further. I can assure the hon. Members opposite that there has been nothing either in the mind of the Government of India, or in my mind, in any way slighting or depreciatory on the position of any of these Rulers, however small their territory may be. The whole purpose of this Measure is to preserve their rights and, at the same time, to secure for their subjects the services which they have not been able to get in the past. This Bill has, unfortunately, been a long time in coming before the House. The Viceroy telegraphed how urgent it was to get it


through before Christmas if possible. I do suggest that, in the interests of all concerned in administrative decency in India—if I may use that term—at any rate the orderly conduct of the affairs of that large area of India, we should dispose of this Measure now. I would earnestly appeal to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Maxton: I am not complaining about the Minister at all. I think he has been wonderful. I am not complaining about the Attorney-General. I am complaining about those responsible for organising the Business of the House. If they had any decency they would get up and say "Put the Third Reading down for some other day." Would the Attorney-General remember this, that those who are against this Bill can kill it stone dead now? Just remember that.

Mr. W. Whiteley: It is true that this Bill was "down for last week, and for the convenience of hon. Members it had to be postponed until to-day. I have made full inquiries and I understand this Bill is urgently needed. I am not anxious to stay; I am just as anxious as my hon. Friends to finish in a reasonable time. It is not because we are opposed to the situation. It was absolutely essential that this should be put down for to-day, and there is no other reason at all.

Mr. Silverman: All the same it would be interesting to know the Members for whose convenience the Bill was put forward until to-day and, if there were some who decided that it should be taken to-day? I am not aware that that absolves the Government. What my hon. Friend said just now is true—those who are against this Measure could defeat it now. It might be very difficult to get it afterwards, except after a long delay. If they were to exercise their power to-day the Government would lose a Measure which, on the assurance of the Patronage Secretary, it is essential not merely to have but to have now.

Mr. Maxton: The Patronage Secretary said that this Bill was brought on to-day to suit the convenience of hon. Members. I was probably the only Member who asked for a postponement, not to suit my convenience but to avoid the Measure being taken last week in the circumstances in which it is being taken now. Inside five days there has been a Second Reading, the Committee stage and—

Mr. Speaker: On the Third Reading we discuss what is in the Bill. This has mainly to do with what is outside the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: I imagine that the Third Reading should not be taken now on top of the Committee and Report stages at this hour. That is all I am trying to argue now; I am not debating the Third Reading.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

The remaining Order was read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — OLD AGE PENSIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am sorry to delay the House, but the matter I wish to raise has been outstanding for some time and it was felt that this was the only opportunity for another five or six weeks when the points I have to make might be cleared up. On 3rd February, a Question was put on the Order Paper as follows:
To ask the Minister of Pensions if the increase in the rates of supplementary pensions now payable to old age pensioners will be deducted from war service grants to the mothers of serving men in those cases in which the father is getting a supplementary pension."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1944; col. 1,383, Vol. 396.]
The effect of the Minister's answer was that an increase in supplementary pension to a father in a household would lead to a reduction of war service grant to the wife or mother of the serving soldier. In order to see how this was done further Questions, relating to the same point, were put to the Secretary of State for Air and the Secretary of State for War, who answered that the increase in supplementary pension was not used to reduce the Air Force or Army allowances respectively. Perhaps I had better read what was said so that we might have it on record. The Secretary of State for Air said, on 23rd February:
In order, however, to avoid a series of adjustments in cases where a person is eligible


for both dependant's allowance and supplementary pension the practice of the Service Departments is to disregard supplementary pensions when assessing dependant's allowance, and of the Assistance Board to take dependant's allowance into account, subject to certain disregards. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1944; col. 852, Vol. 397.]
I am sorry if I am not making myself heard so well as usual to-day, but I have left half my voice on the battlefront of the Welsh coalfields. Calculation of the war service grant is provided for, as far as disregards are concerned, by the same Act as the provisions applying to supplementary pensions. The effect of the Parliamentary Secretary's answer to the Question is that, if an increase is given in the supplementary pension on the one hand by the Assistance Board, the Ministry of Pensions comes along and takes away from the mother in that household the increase which the father has received. We say that this is getting behind the back of the House. The House was aware that there are some hundreds of thousands of cases in which a father and mother, living together, have a son in the Forces, the mother in receipt of a dependant's allowance and a war service grant, and the father in receipt of a supplementary pension, when it decided to increase the scales of supplementary pensions. My hon. Friend innocently declared "We take it into account for the purpose of reducing the war service grant," and then set at nought what was decided after a very hectic Debate. Suppose the supplementary pension is reduced; does the war service grant go up or, if the war service grant is increased, does the supplementary pension go down, or are we going to face the situation that we had when we had the introduction of the war service grant that, when the supplementary pension was reduced, an applicant could make another application for an additional war service grant? I ask my hon. Friend to try to justify the practice that he has adopted of taking away with one hand what someone else has given with the other.

Mr. Silverman: I know that the House is extremely anxious to hear my hon. Friend's attempt to justify this monstrous proceeding. I got up for two purposes only, one to show that the position taken by my hon. Friend is taken not merely very widely in the House but is getting very wide support

in the absence of the acceptance of his view, and is causing very bitter indignation all over the country, and secondly to sympathise with my hon. Friend who is going to reply for the Government. I do not know who has provided him with the brief that he will speak to, but I know he does not believe a word of it, any more than the person who provided it believes it either. We are getting to a very sorry position when the presence in the Government of people who accept our point of view is used to stall off very real grievances of this kind. I do not think my hon. Friend agrees with this position, whatever he may say. He knows it is wrong, as we all do. He knows that the intention of the House when it approved those increases was that the standard of living should improve, and he knows that the practice of his Department has the effect in this case of preventing those families from enjoying the increase in the standard of living which the House desired them to have. I wish he would use his energies, instead of defending a position that he knows to be wrong, in making certain that the practice is altered.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): I agree that, if the two answers that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) elicited, one from my Department and the other from the Services, were all that is to be said about the matter, it would place my Department in a very bad position as compared with other Departments. But it is not quite all that can be said about the matter. The hon. Member's first question about war service grants was to my Department. It was whether, if a supplementary pension was increased, we took the increase into account in the war service grant. The answer was "Yes." Then he put the opposite case to the Services and asked whether, where an allowance was granted and a supplementary pension was also granted, they reduced the allowance. The answer was "No." That appeared on the face of it to put us in a bad position as compared with the Services, but it is not quite so bad as that as I will try to show. What happens in the case of the Services is that they do not reduce their allowance when a supplementary pension is granted, but it is the supplementary pension people who


make the adjustment. Before they make the supplementary pension they take into account the allowance that is given from the Services. In our case the opposite occurs. The supplementary pension people do not take into account our war service grant and so we have to do it from the opposite point of view. The net result in both cases is the same. If we adopted the administrative practice of the Services, this question would not have arisen.

Mr. Silverman: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the responsibility for this situation lies not with his Department, but with the Ministry of Health?

Mr. Paling: I am not saying anything of the kind. I am merely saying that the adjustment so far as supplementary pension is concerned is made by us in one case by reduction of service grant, and in the other case, where the reduction is not made by the Services, the supplementary pension people make the reduction.

Mr. Silverman: Who are they?

Mr. Paling: They are the Assistance Board.

Mr. Silverman: Who answers for them?

Mr. Paling: I do not know. I am concerned with the war service grants. An adjustment is made in both cases. In our case it is made by ourselves because the Assistance Board do not take into account our grant. In the other case, the Assistance Board make the adjustment from their point of view. The net result is the same. The adjustment is made whether it is made by us or by the Assistance Board. It would simplify it, I agree, if the Assistance Board made the adjustment for us, as they make it for the Services, but for administrative reasons we prefer to make the adjustment ourselves because our practice of assessment is different from that of the Services. Therefore, it is easier for us to do the adjusting than for the Assistance Board to do it, as they do in the case of Service allowances. That is the main answer to the problem which my hon. Friend has put. The net result is—

Mr. Silverman: They lose the money.

Mr. Paling: No, they do not. The net result is that the people lose no more under our practice than they do under

the practice adopted by the Services. The hon. Member shakes his head, but if he can prove otherwise I shall be glad to hear him.

Mr. Edwards: Here is the answer to the Question, in which it says that the allowances are not interfered with.

Mr. Paling: Exactly, the allowances are not interfered with by the Service Departments, but the Assistance Board, when there is a supplementary pension, interfere with it and adjust the pension according to the allowances that have been made. In our case we do it the other way. The Assistance Board in our case do not take into account the War Service grant that we give, but we do the adjusting when they give their pension, by reducing the Service grant if it is necessary.

Mr. Silverman: Is the net result that in all cases these families lose the benefit of the increase that this House authorised?

Mr. Paling: I do not know whether the hon. Member cares to put it like that. All right. The point that I am trying to meet in answer to the hon. Member is whether we treat the supplementary pensioners worse than the Services treat them. We treat them exactly on the same basis.

Mr. Driberg: Which means just as badly.

Mr. Paling: If you like. My next point is that the hon. Member has in mind the case in which we might have seen fit to leave the extra pension alone and not count it against the war service grant. There might be a case for that, but the Government have always refused to interfere with the principles on which war service grants are assessed. When the last increases were granted to the Services, hon. Members opposite asked that the increase in the children's allowances should not be counted against the war service grants received by the family, but the Government refused, because the war service grant was given to deal with the special case of hardship, and was not on a Hat rate. We are in the same position. We have no power to grant an exception in these cases, or it would be followed by scores of others till the whole thing got into a condition of sheer disorder. There is another point, in which there is a slight benefit because of our method, and though it is small it is worth mentioning. We deal


in two-shilling units, and nothing under 2s: is taken into account. There are numbers of cases in which the supplementary pension is lower.
My last word is that the hon. Member tried to make out that we were a harsh, mean and undeserving body, but that is not so. I claim that, on the whole, war service grants are administered in a generous spirit and with a fair amount of elasticity. We have never been concerned with reducing people to the lowest penny we can get out of them. Our outlook has never been that; we try to be as generous as we possibly can, and try to conduct our administration in the most generous and humane way and I claim that we are doing it. I claim that the case that the hon. Member thought he had against us just does not exist.

Mr. Mathers: I think that what my right hon. Friend has demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt is that the means test or needs test that is applied by those who administer the war service grants is of the same kind as that applied in the administration of supplementary pensions, and that the ordinary Service allowances are not in the same way sub-

ject to a needs test. Anything that is additional to them in the family income, whether under the head of supplementary pension or war service grant, is under the Regulations of necessity subject to a needs test. I think that is perfectly clear and that my right hon. Friend has made clear his case and has justified his own Department against the claim made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Driberg: I am afraid I must disagree with the hon. Member who has spoken from my adopted Front Bench. I think the Government have put up a really lamentable and feeble case. It is conceded that, as a result of these manipulations and administrative arrangements, the families are impoverished. That is all that matters. The Government excuse for that reminds me of a little boy caught pinching jam out of the larder, who points to his elder brother and says, "He does it too." The slight concession which the right hon. Gentleman announced at the end of his speech simply means the giving back of the empty jam-jar to the housewife.

Question "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.